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
Applicant’s submission filed on August 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 were amended. Claims 21-23 were newly added. Claims 3, 5, and 18 were canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-23 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on May 13, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-23 are examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4, 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020089058 A1 by Kanakaris et al. (hereinafter “Kanakaris”), as evidenced by Examiner provided NPL “Characterization of Starch-Water Interactions and Their Effects on Two Key Functional Properties” (hereinafter “Donmez et al.”; see also Citations below).
Regarding claim 1, Kanakaris discloses a razor cartridge comprising (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, shaving cartridge 1): a housing (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, housing 101) having a leading longitudinal side (see Examiner annotated Kanakaris Figure 3, hereinafter “EAKF3”; leading side) and a trailing longitudinal side (EAKF3, trailing side); one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, blades 11) disposed between the leading longitudinal side and the trailing longitudinal side; and a hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, solid bloc 12; Kanakaris, pg. 10, line 20, “the core matrix is configured as solid bloc 12”; Kanakaris, pg. 6, lines 14-17, “In some examples, the core matrix may be structured in a two-layer form comprising a top layer and a bottom layer. The top layer may be water-insoluble and the bottom layer may be water-soluble”) disposed between the leading longitudinal side and the trailing longitudinal side (see EAKF3) and adjacent to the one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, blades 11), wherein: while in a wet state (Kanakaris, pg. 5, lines 27-31, the core matrix 13a, 13b dissolves when the user rinses the razor head 10, thereby exposing the cutting edges 14 and allowing use of the blades 11 for shaving…”), the hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 2, solid bloc 12) is configured to expose more of the one or more shaving blades than is exposed while the hygromorphic layer is in the dry state (Kanakaris, pg. 1, lines 35-37, “a core matrix partially encasing the blades… The care matrix is configured to hold the blades together before use thereby forming the shaving cartridge”).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kanakaris discloses the hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 1, solid bloc 12) comprises a hygroexpansible material that is configured to swell when exposed to water and a hygroinert material that is configured not to swell when exposed to water (Kanakaris, pg. 6, lines 14-17, “In some examples, the core matrix may be structured in a two-layer form comprising a top layer and a bottom layer. The top layer may be water-insoluble and the bottom layer may be water-soluble”).
This is further evidenced by Donmez et al., a scientific journal article regarding the behavior of starch with water, which details how starch swells in water (Donmez et al., pg. 1, Introduction, para. 2, “in an aqueous medium at low temperature, native starch granules swell due to the diffusion and absorption of water in the granule amorphous regions”). Starch, like many other options listed in Kanakaris for the water-soluble layer (which functions as the hygroexpansible material, in this case) of the core matrix (which functions as the hygromorphic layer, in this case), is a substance that is configured to swell when exposed to water. Therefore, the water-soluble layer of Kanakaris is hygroexpansible.
Regarding claim 4, Kanakaris discloses the hygroexpansible material is hydrophilic and the hygroinert material is hydrophobic (Kanakaris, pg. 6, lines 14-17, “In some examples, the core matrix may be structured in a two-layer form comprising a top layer and a bottom layer. The top layer may be water-insoluble and the bottom layer may be water-soluble”).
Regarding claim 6, Kanakaris discloses the one or more shaving blades have a length (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, length), and wherein the hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, solid bloc 20) at least partially covers at least part of the length of the one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, blades 11) while the hygromorphic layer is in the dry state (Kanakaris, pg. 1, lines 35-37, “a core matrix partially encasing the blades… The care matrix is configured to hold the blades together before use thereby forming the shaving cartridge”).
Regarding claim 10, Kanakaris discloses the hygroinert layer is patterned (Kanakaris, pg. 6, lines 13-14, “the core matrix comprising a layer of water-insoluble material may also bear aesthetic configurations, such as logo or graphics”).
Regarding claim 11, Kanakaris discloses the hygroinert layer comprises a plurality of gaps and/or regions of variable layer thickness (Kanakaris, pg. 6, lines 6-8, “In some examples, the core matrix being configured in a film/sheet form may comprise a single layer made of water-insoluble material”; see also Examiner annotated Kanakaris Figure 2, hereinafter “EAKF2”; gaps).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kanakaris discloses the hygromorphic layer has a thickness between about 20 μm to about 400 μm (Kanakaris, pg. 5, lines 35-39, “the water-soluble material of the core matrix 13b may be an adhesive and the core matrix 13b may further be configured in a film/sheet form having a thickness between 0.1-5mm and comprising one or more layers made of water-soluble material, water-insoluble material or combinations thereof”).
Note: 0.1-5 mm = 100-5000 μm
Regarding claim 13, Kanakaris discloses the hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 3 & 4, solid bloc 2) is attached to the housing (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, housing 101).
Regarding claim 14, Kanakaris discloses the hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, solid bloc 12) is a first hygromorphic layer attached to a first side portion or a first retainer (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, shaving cartridge 1), and wherein a second hygromorphic layer is attached to a second side portion or a second retainer (Kanakaris, pg. 2, lines 20-23, “The bloc shape of the shaving cartridges contributes to facilitate their storage… In examples, the case may comprise a box or separating foil for each separate shaving cartridge”).
Regarding claim 15, Kanakaris discloses the hygromorphic layer comprises at least one protrusion (EAKF2, protrusion).
Regarding claim 17, Kanakaris discloses the hygromorphic layer (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, solid bloc 12) is attached to the one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, blades 11) while the hygromorphic layer is in the dry state (Kanakaris, pg. 1, lines 35-37, “a core matrix partially encasing the blades… The care matrix is configured to hold the blades together before use thereby forming the shaving cartridge”).
Regarding claim 19, Kanakaris discloses a method for manufacturing a razor cartridge according to claim 1 (Kanakaris, pg. 10, lines 19-20, “Regarding the manufacturing process that can be applied for the construction of the shaving cartridge 1”), wherein the method comprises: providing a razor cartridge blank (Kanakaris, pg. 12, lines 25-26, “The shaving cartridge 1 is configured to be removably incorporated in the housing 101 of the razor head”); and either attaching the hygromorphic layer to a razor cartridge housing comprised within the razor cartridge blank; or, attaching the hygromorphic layer to the one or more shaving blades, wherein the one or more shaving blades are comprised within the razor cartridge blank (Kanakaris, pg. 13, lines 10-12 & 15-17, “This one-side snap lock configuration allows the cover to be removably attached to the housing thereby permitting further replacement of the shaving cartridge 1 (or the blades 11)… The sliding retaining element 105 may be configured to lock the blades 11 in place…”).
Regarding claim 21, Kanakaris discloses while in the dry state, the hygromorphic layer covers at least 40% of the one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, blades 11; EAKF3, length; Kanakaris, pg. 5, lines The blades 11 may comprise a cutting edge 14 which is also at least partially encased in the core matrix 13a, 13b… The encasing of the cutting edges 14 permits to easily manipulate the shaving cartridge 1 without any risk of injury, as the cutting edges 14 cannot be reached or touched by the user at the time of mounting”).
Regarding claim 22, Kanakaris discloses while in the dry state, the hygromorphic layer covers at least 80% of the one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, Fig. 3, blades 11; EAKF3, length; Kanakaris, pg. 5, lines The blades 11 may comprise a cutting edge 14 which is also at least partially encased in the core matrix 13a, 13b… The encasing of the cutting edges 14 permits to easily manipulate the shaving cartridge 1 without any risk of injury, as the cutting edges 14 cannot be reached or touched by the user at the time of mounting”).
Regarding claim 23, Kanakaris discloses while in the wet state, the hygromorphic layer is configured to fully expose an entirety of the one or more shaving blades (Kanakaris, pg. 5, lines 27-29, “the core matrix 13a, 13b dissolves when the user rinses the razor head 10, thereby exposing the cutting edges 14 and allowing use of the blades 11 for shaving.”).
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 7-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020089058 A1 by Kanakaris in view of US 20160297087 A1 by Nicholas, as evidenced by Examiner provided NPL “Toners” by Fink (see also Citations below).
Regarding claim 7, Kanakaris does not explicitly disclose toner ink.
Nicholas, however, does disclose the hygroinert material comprises a toner ink (Nicholas, Abstract, “The solid object includes a plurality of printed ink dots”; , para. 17, “the printing is inkjet printing, a UV curable ink, a polymer-based ink, and/or a flexible ink”).
Examiner would like to note that while Nicholas does not explicitly disclose a hygromorphic material with a hygroexpansible material and a hygroinert material, the nature of a solid object made of ink (especially UV curable ink as preferred by Nicholas) is inherently hygroinert. The printed object and the hygromorphic layer also serve the same purpose of protecting the user and the blades against contact and abrasion and are similarly oriented and placed, so for the purposes of examination, examiner is recognizing the printed object to be analogous in function and structure with the layer in view of Kanakaris.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the hygroinert material of Kanakaris include toner ink as taught by Nicholas because of the fast production speed of using inks and improved durability (Nicholas, para. 46, “The cross linking that occurs during curing provides a durable ink surface with good adhesion to the part; Nicholas, para. 48, “The high cure rates of UV curable inks translate into very high operating speeds”).
Regarding claim 8, the Kanakaris/Nicholas combination is as described in the rejection of claim 7 above. Furthermore, Nicholas discloses the toner ink comprises an ester of an acrylic ester, iodine-doped reduced graphene oxide, polyimide, partially reduced graphene oxide-polypyrrole, graphite, biaxially oriented polypropylene, SU-8, NOA63, poly(methyl methacrylate) and/or a styrene-acrylate copolymer (Nicholas, para. 17, “the printing is inkjet printing, a UV curable ink, a polymer-based ink, and/or a flexible ink”).
While Nicholas does not explicitly state the components that make up the toner ink, toner ink typically contains a resin that can be comprised of several different types of polymers such as acrylic esters, polyimides, or styrene-acrylate copolymers as evidenced by Fink (Fink, Section 20.1, “Several polymers are usable as the thermoplastic binder resin, including poly(styrene)s, styrene-acrylic resins, styrene-methacrylic resins, polyesters, epoxy resins, acrylics, and urethanes”; Section 20.2, “A variety of polyimide resins derived from a dianhydrides…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the toner ink include at least one of the components claimed above as taught by Nicholas due to the fast production speed of using inks and improved durability (Nicholas, para. 46, “The cross linking that occurs during curing provides a durable ink surface with good adhesion to the part; Nicholas, para. 48, “The high cure rates of UV curable inks translate into very high operating speeds”).
Regarding claim 16, Kanakaris does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the at least one protrusion.
Nicholas, however, does teach the at least one protrusion has a height between about 50 μm to about 500 μm and/or a width between about 20 μm to about 100 μm (Nicholas, para. 70, “Though any shape in contemplated in the present invention, the printed object as shown in FIGS. 3A-3l… a height dimension H of from about 0.04 mm to about 0.20 mm… a preferable width dimension W of about 0.01 to about 1.0 mm…”).
Note: 0.04-0.2 mm = 40-200 μm; 0.01-1 mm = 10-1000 μm
Examiner would like to note that while Nicholas does not explicitly disclose a hygromorphic material with a hygroexpansible material and a hygroinert material, the nature of a solid object made of ink (especially UV curable ink as preferred by Nicholas) is inherently hygroinert. The printed object and the hygromorphic layer also serve the same purpose of protecting the user and the blades against contact and abrasion and are similarly oriented and placed, so for the purposes of examination, examiner is recognizing the printed object to be analogous in function and structure with the layer in view of Kanakaris.
Therefore, because the disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range of thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to vary the dimensions of the protrusions of Kanakaris to optimize the fit and coverage over a razor blade, which generally has a standard range of length ideally for hair, as taught by Nicholas (Nicholas, para. 70, “Though any shape in contemplated in the present invention, the printed object as shown in FIGS. 3A-3l… a height dimension H of from about 0.04 mm to about 0.20 mm… a preferable width dimension W of about 0.01 to about 1.0 mm…”; Nicholas, para. 62, “Though each object 34a is shown as generally being a similar size, any size, shape, and number of printed objects 24a may be printed on the razor blade”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020089058 A1 by Kanakaris in view of Examiner Provided NPL “Improved Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Starch Film with Reduced Graphene Oxide Modified by SDBS” by Ge et al. (hereinafter “Ge”; see also Citations below).
Regarding claim 9, Kanakaris does not explicitly disclose the hygroexpansible material comprises pollen paper, reduced graphene oxide, bacillus subtilis spores, CNT-paper, and/or polydopamine-reduced graphene oxide.
However, Kanakaris does disclose that one option for the hygroexpansible material is starch (Kanakaris, pg. 7, line 8-10 & 12, “the water-soluble material that the core matrix may comprise, the core matrix may comprise 10-80% by weight diluents… According to this first embodiment, diluents may be selected among: lactose, starch…”). Furthermore, Ge teaches the benefits of using starch combined with reduced graphene oxide (Ge, pg. 1, Abstract, “In this study, they improved the mechanical and barrier properties of starch films with reduced graphene oxide (RGO) modified by sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (SDBS)… In conclusion, the r-RGO/OS composite film has great potential applications in packaging industry”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the hygroexpansible material of Kanakaris include reduced graphene oxide as taught by Ge for increased tensile strength, improved the oxygen barrier property, and protect against UV light as the hygroexpansible material covers the blades (Ge, pg. 7, Conclusions, “The tensile strength of the r-RGO-4/OS film increased to 58.5 MPa which was more than three times of the OS film (17.2)… Above all, the r-RGO/OS film can be a promising candidate for packaging and other field”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020089058 A1 by Kanakaris in view of US 20120030948 A1 by Walker et al. (hereinafter “Walker”).
Regarding claim 20, Kanakaris discloses does teach a shaving razor assembly comprising: a razor handle (Kanakaris, pg. 1, lines 17, “a shaver with a removable head. A shaver of this kind includes a permanent handle with a removable razor head which contains blades”); a razor cartridge according to claim 1, wherein the razor cartridge is either releasably attached to the razor handle, integrally formed with the razor handle via a non-pivotable connection, or integrally formed with the razor handle (Kanakaris, pg. 14, lines 14-16, “a razor head 10 containing the shaving cartridge 1 and a handle (not shown). The razor head 10 may be releasably connected to the handle. The shaver head may be monolithically formed with the handle”). Kanakaris does not explicitly disclose the type of connection the handle has.
Walker, however, does teach a pivotable or non-pivotable connection (Walker, para. 2, “shaving razors of the wet shave type include a cartridge or blade unit with at least one blade with a cutting edge which is moved across the surface of the skin being shaved by means of a handle to which the cartridge is attached. The cartridge may be mounted detachably on the handle to enable the cartridge to be replaced by a fresh cartridge when the blade sharpness has diminished to an unsatisfactory level, or it may be attached permanently to the handle with the intention that the entire razor be discarded when the blade or blades have become dulled (i.e., disposable razor). The connection of the cartridge to the handle provides a pivotal mounting of the cartridge with respect to the handle so that the cartridge angle adjusts to follow the contours of the surface being shaved”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to add a handle to the razor cartridge of Kanakaris in a variety of possible configurations as taught by Walker to allow for reusability of the handle and allow for different shaving angles depending on the configuration of the handle and cartridge (see Walker paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 8, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under header Section 102 Rejections beginning on page 8 have been considered. Applicant argues that with the newly introduced claim limitation, ”while in a dry state, the hygromorphic layer is configured to at least partially cover the one or more shaving blades, and wherein, while in a wet state, the hygromorphic layer is configured to expose more of the one or more shaving blades than is exposed while the hygromorphic layer is in the dry state,” the combination of prior art presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on May 13, 2025 does not teach all the claim limitations. However, as necessitated by the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of WO 2020089058 A1 by Kanakaris. Therefore, claim 1 and all its dependent claims are subsequently rejected, as detailed in the rejections above. However, Examiner recommend amending the claim language to add more clarity on the wet state and the dry state; as the claim limitations currently stand, it does not specify that the hygromorphic layer is able to transition between the wet and dry state repeatedly and only a single wet state and a single dry state.
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 DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
Citations
Donmez, Dila, et al. “Characterization of Starch–Water Interactions and Their Effects on Two Key Functional Properties: Starch Gelatinization and Retrogradation.” Current Opinion in Food Science, vol. 39, 1 June 2021, pp. 103–109, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214799321000011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2020.12.018.
Fink, Johannes Karl. “Toners.” Elsevier EBooks, no. 3, 2018, pp. 629–637, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128145098000208, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-814509-8.00020-8. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
Ge, Xuesong, et al. “Improved Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Starch Film with Reduced Graphene Oxide Modified by SDBS.” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 134, no. 22, 7 Feb. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/app.44910. Accessed 8 Jan. 2026.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724