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 response received 4-29-26 has a section labeled “AMENDMENT TO THE DRAWINGS” that discloses replacement sheets have been submitted. However, there does not appear to be any replacement sheets included in this response.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
With regards to Figures 7A, 7B, 8, 11A, and 11B, there are lines that are unclear if they are just marks on the Figures (from the submission process) or if they represent structures. For example, the Examiner has added circles to Figure 8 showing some of these lines below. It is noted that it appears cross-hatching has been removed from these Figures when compared to the Figures in the parent case 16/369,073.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 disclosure explaining Figures 8 and 9 is unclear. Using page 7 lines 13-16, Figures 8 and 9 have a pivot region in accordance with an alternate embodiment. However, on page 22 line 29 – page 23 line 3, Figure 8 appears to incorporate the same features as Figures 7A and 7B including the same pivot point P. There does not appear to be a description of the pivot region R for Figure 8 but Figure 8 utilizes the same reference labels (P and R) and appears to show the same region as shown in Figures 7A and 7B. It is unclear how Figure 8 shows an alternate pivot region. Page 7 lines 15-16 discloses Figure 9 shows the pivot region of Figure 8 but Figure 9 has different reference labels P2 and R2 from what is shown in Figure 8. It is unclear why Figure 9 has the same region as Figure 8 but uses different labels. It is further noted that page 23 line 5 discloses “FIG. 9 depicts an alternative cross-sectional view 110 of the system of FIG. 9”. It is unclear how Figure 9 can show an alternative in relation to itself. Was this disclosure supposed to say Figure 9 is an alternative to Figure 8 even though page 7 lines 13-16 says they are the same? The region and pivot point of Figure 9 appears to be the same as Figure 8 and Figures 7A and 7B.
Since Figures 8 and 9 represent an alternative embodiment, all of the limitations from claim 1 or any other claim must be discussed in the specification to provide support in a way that does not introduce new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 some labels are in brackets while other labels are not in brackets. All labels need to be amended to be in brackets.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, it is unclear what structure defines the boundaries of the pivot point region. Basically, there is no explanation in the specification that explains how the size/shape/location of the region R has been determined. For example, why does the region extend above and below the shave plane especially when another region can be drawn that is completely on one side of the plane? What makes this exact region the pivot region and why is the lower boundary of the region (as shown in Figures 8 and 9) spaced from any razor system structures? Also, the upper dashed line of the region (R and R2) divides the cartridge into a non-region portion and a region portion. What structure prevents the non-region portion of the cartridge from defining a part of the pivot region? Basically, it is unclear how the size/shape/location of the pivot region is determined and what prevents non-region parts from defining parts of the region. Without definition or explanation on why the region extends as shown in Figures 8 and 9, it is unclear why the much smaller rectangle region or the oval region (added in the Figure below) cannot both be considered the pivot region. The re-drawn regions are only within item 20 and is not above and below the shave plane. Without any structure specifics explained in the definition of the region, there does not appear to be a reason why the re-drawn regions below could not also be considered a pivot region as it is merely a special location where pivoting occurs. If the only requirement of the region is that it must include the pivot point, any region drawn around the pivot point satisfies being a pivot region which allows for the region to be different each time.
PNG
media_image2.png
574
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “pivot point (P) disposed on a location of a pivot axis A! that is traverse to a longitudinal axis” is unclear. It is unclear what structures define the pivot axis and the longitudinal axis. As written, they are not defined by any part of the cartridge/housing and can be define by outside structures. Assuming the pivot axis is defined by the pivot point, a pivot point cannot be on a line it defines. The claim needs to disclose that the pivot point defines the pivot axis and the claim needs to disclose what structure defines the longitudinal axis so the limitation is clear.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear what structure defines the boundaries of the pivot point region. Basically, there is no explanation in the specification that explains how the size/shape/location of the region R has been determined. For example, why does the region extend above and below the shave plane especially when another region can be drawn that is completely on one side of the plane? What makes this exact region the pivot region and why is the lower boundary of the region (as shown in Figures 8 and 9) spaced from any razor system structures? Also, the upper dashed line of the region (R and R2) divides the cartridge into a non-region portion and a region portion. What structure prevents the non-region portion of the cartridge from defining a part of the pivot region? Basically, it is unclear how the size/shape/location of the pivot region is determined and what prevents non-region parts from defining parts of the region. Without definition or explanation on why the region extends as shown in Figures 8 and 9, it is unclear why the much smaller rectangle region or oval region (added in the Figure above) cannot be considered the pivot region. The re-drawn region is only within item 20 is not below the shave plane. Without any structure specifics explained in the definition of the region, there does not appear to be a reason why the re-drawn region above could not also be considered a pivot region as it is merely a special location where pivoting occurs. If the only requirement of the region is that it must include the pivot point, any region drawn around the pivot point satisfies being a pivot region which allows for the region to be different each time.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear if user engagement with the structures of the cartridge determines the placement of the region. If user engagement determines the region, the region is indefinite in that the region is dependent upon an indefinite user. Basically, one user may only engage some structures in the box, another user may engage different structures in the box, or a user may engage items not in the box to initiate pivoting. Using Figure 8, a user can grab the cartridge at location 15 to initiate pivoting and this portion is not in the dashed region box. Since the user can use the razor differently each time, the region would be different each time if the region is determined by user engagement.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear what structure allows for the system to comprise a region that is beyond the borders of the system. The lower dashed line region R in Figure 8 is spaced from the cartridge of the system thereby allowing the region to define an “outside the system” space between the cartridge and the lower dashed line of the region. Claim 1 discloses the pivot point P is located at a position in a pivot region R. What structure allows for the pivot point to be spaced from the system in the “outside the system” space?
Claims
It is to be noted that claim 1 has 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-29-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The pivot point region is the part that is still not understood. It is unclear how the size/shape/location of the region are determined and how portions of a region that is comprised by the system can extend beyond the system.
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.
06 May 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights