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 specification amendment to page 7 line 17 does not incorporate markings showing the changes made as required by CFR 1.121. This portion of the amendment should be resubmitted with the markings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The I.D.S. received 1-22-26 has NPL documents that have been lined through. It is unclear how the objection/rejection/allowance of claims with different combination of limitations is relevant to the instant application. Without any reasoning provided by Applicant, these NPL documents will not be considered.
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 claims 1 and 11 or any other claim must be discussed in the specification to provide support in a way that does not introduce new matter.
On page 7 line 17, the phrase “FIG. 10 shows” should be replaced with “FIGS.10A-10H show”
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are 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 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.
Claims 1 and 11 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, 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 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 define a region that is beyond the borders of the system.
With regards to claim 11, the phrase “the at least one opening…is releasably engaged with the at least one skin interconnect member” is unclear. As written, this “engagement” is in addition to the at least one skin interconnect member being “joined” within the opening of the housing. Claim 11 does not further limit the claim 1 “joined” limitation and is therefore in addition to the “joined” limitation. That means, the member is joined and separately engaged with the cartridge which is not supported. Claim 11 needs to further define the “joined” relationship that is disclosed in claim 1. For example, claim 11 should disclose “the joining between the at least one opening and the at least one skin interconnect member is a releasable engagement to replaceably secure the razor cartridge to the proximal end portion of the handle”.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1 and 11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-22-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The pivot point region is the part that is not understood. It is unclear how the boundaries of the region are determined and how portions of a region of the system can beyond the system.
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.
28 January 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724