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 . 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,4-9,12,14-15,20-21 are pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said detachable interface comprising a cooperative post and recess arrangement, said arrangement located at a midpoint of both a length and a width of the head”.
-Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the rotatable mounting element comprising a cooperative post and recess arrangement disposed at a midpoint of both the cartridge length and width”.
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 1,4-9,12,14-15 and 20 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.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said detachable interface comprising a cooperative post and recess arrangement, said arrangement located at a midpoint of both a length and a width of the head” is new matter.
-Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the rotatable mounting element comprising a cooperative post and recess arrangement disposed at a midpoint of both the cartridge length and width” is new matter”.
Examiner notes the specification and drawings to not appear to describe what a “recess arrangement” is as currently claimed. It is unclear if the recess is within the post (232)(See Figure 14) or if another recess such as 238 is to be the recess arrangement. As the specification does not utilize the specific terminology, it is also unclear as to what or where the “midpoint” is to be. As currently claimed any dimension of the length and width of the head and cartridge respectively could be used to determine “a midpoint”.
-Regarding claim 21, the phrase “each blade oriented such that a surface extending between the rear non-cutting edge and the front cutting edge is oriented at an acute angle relative to an area between the first and second shaving surfaced” is new matter. Paragraph 0016 appears to support the language of a front cutting edge and a rear non-cutting edge, but the specification appears silent as to any specific “acute” angle in relation to the first/second shaving surfaces.
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 1,4-9,12,14-15 and 20 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.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation "said arrangement" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 20 recites the limitations “recess arrangement disposed at a midpoint of both the cartridge length and width” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said detachable interface comprising a cooperative post and recess arrangement, said arrangement located at a midpoint of both a length and a width of the head” is unclear.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the rotatable mounting element comprising a cooperative post and recess arrangement disposed at a midpoint of both the cartridge length and width” is unclear.
Examiner notes the phrases above to be unclear, and the specification and drawings to not appear to describe what a “recess arrangement” is as currently claimed. It is unclear if the recess is within the post (232)(See Figure 14) or if another recess such as 238 is to be the recess arrangement. As the specification does not utilize the specific terminology, it is also unclear as to what or where the “midpoint” is to be. As currently claimed any dimension of the length and width of the head and cartridge respectively could be used to determine “a midpoint” and will be treated as such in the rejection below.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4-6,12,14-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liberatore (U.S. Patent No. 2017/0021513). 34
Regarding claim 1, Liberatore teaches a razor apparatus (Figure 1) including;
a head having at least one blade member (14) on each of a first and a second opposed side of the head, each blade member having a straight front cutting edge and a rear non-cutting edge (Figures 2-3 and Paragraph 0058), the head including
a frame defining an opening (Figures 2-3 noting the hole within the frame above the blade grooves 18) through which the cutting edges are accessible, the head having a first engagement with a handle (6) (Figure 1) such that the first side of the head is a primary shaving surface, the frame mounted to said handle via a detachable interface (20, 22)(Figure 1);
said detachable interface comprising a cooperative post (22) and recess arrangement (20), said arrangement located at a midpoint of both a length and a width of the head (Figure 34 and annotated Figure 38 below and Paragraph 0096; Examiner notes the head has multiple dimensions of length and width. As noted in the annotation below, there is a length and a width dimension in the head that provides the recess (20) at a midpoint between the two dimensions), wherein said detachable interface allows rotation of the head around a longitudinal axis of said handle such that said head is rotatable at least 180 degrees wherein the second opposed side of the head becomes the primary shaving surface (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0005, 0008, 0054).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 1 wherein said handle is configured to receive a replacement head (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0054; See Figures 6-7 noting attachment with viewing of the entire handle (6)).
Regarding claim 5, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 1 wherein said handle includes an ergonomic gripping surface (Figure 6-7 noting the rounded handle this reading upon “ergonomic gripping surface).
Regarding claim 6, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 5 wherein said ergonomic gripping surface includes an arcuate section such that the head is positioned off of a longitudinal axis of the handle at the gripping surface and is closer to an intended shaving surface (Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 12, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 1 including multiple blades on each side of the head (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 1 wherein said handle further comprises a chamber (Figures 18-19) receiving said head (Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 15, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 14 further comprising a cover (52) closing said chamber (Figures 18-19; Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 20, Liberatore teaches a method for reversing an orientation of a razor blade cartridge (2) on a razor handle (6) comprising providing a razor apparatus including a head having at least one blade member (14) on each of a first and a second opposed side of the head, the head having a rotatable mounting element for attachment to the handle; the rotatable mounting element comprising a cooperative post (22) and recess arrangement (20) disposed at a midpoint of both the cartridge length and width head (Figure 34 and annotated Figure 38 above and Paragraph 0096; Examiner notes the cartridge has multiple dimensions of length and width. As noted in the annotation above, there is a length and a width dimension in the cartridge that provides the recess (20) at a midpoint between the two dimensions), and rotating said head 180 degrees around a longitudinal axis of said handle (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0005 and 0054).
Regarding claim 21, Liberatore teaches disposable shaving head having top, bottom and opposed side edges, the shaving head further including first and second shaving surfaces wherein each of the first and second shaving surfaces are elongated and extend along a width (Figures 1-3; Paragraph 0054), each shaving surface having one or more blades (14), each of the blades having a front cutting edge and a rear non-cutting edge (See Figure 2 noting the front cutting edge provided in blade groove 18; Examiner notes the rear side to be “non cutting” as only one side may be used to cut at a time; Paragraph 0057-0058), each extending parallel to the width of the shaving head, each blade oriented such that a surface extending between the rear non-cutting edge and the front cutting edge is oriented at an acute angle relative to an area between the first and second shaving surfaces (Figures 1-3 and Paragraph 0055; Examiner notes the cited paragraph provides the blade may be any angle, however 60 degrees is preferred), said shaving head configured for rotatable mounting (20, 22) to a handle (6), the shaving head engaging the handle only at the bottom edge (See Figure 1), the head being able to rotate between a first configuration in which said first shaving surface faces a front side of said handle to allow shaving while said second shaving surface faces a rear side of said handle, and a second configuration in which the positions of said first shaving surface and said second shaving surface are reversed such that said second shaving surface faces the front side of said handle to allow shaving with the second shaving surface (Paragraph 0005 and Figures 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberatore (U.S. Patent No. 2017/0021513).
Regarding claim 7, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 1 but does not provide further including a hinge disposed between the first and second opposed sides of the head.
Liberatore provides (Paragraph 0056) the cartridge halves can be two pieces that are attached via a variety of ways (Snap fit, welding, bands etc.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue cartridge connections which are known to be useful for a particular retaining function. There are a finite number of possible connections which pertain to a razor cartridge and allow for the two halves to be connected. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable connection, including a hinge in an attempt to provide an improved connecting function for the cartridge head as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 8, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 7 wherein said hinge is comprised of a flexible plastic or rubber (Paragraph 0010 and 0055).
Regarding claim 9, Liberatore teaches the razor of claim 7 wherein said hinge fills at least 75% of a space between opposed blade members.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have the hinge of any reasonable size because discovering a workable hinge with the specific dimensions would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired connection to be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Regarding claims 1 and 20, the rejection above has been updated to include an annotation of Figure 38 of Liberatore to note the newly claimed dimensions. Figure 34 provides an overview of the cartridge recess (20) while an annotation of Figure 38 (See claim 1 in the rejection above) provides visual showing a length and a width of the head/cartridge. As the claim merely requires a length and a width of the cartridge/head the rejection above reads upon the current claim limitations, with the recess (20) at a midpoint between the two dimensions.
-Regarding claim 21, Examiner has updated the rejection in light of the amendments to the claim. The rejection notes the orientation of the blade to include both a front cutting edge and rear “non cutting edge” as well as the proposed acute angle (See Figures 1-3 and Paragraphs 0055-0059 of the prior art Liberatore).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 Eiseman can be reached at 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 02/19/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724