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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the vertical portions” in the fourth line, referring to both the T-shape opening and the I-shape spine, however only the I-shape spine is previously referred to as having “a corresponding vertical portion”. The T-shape opening must also first introduce “a vertical portion” before being referred to as having “the vertical portion”.
Claim 2 recites in the last two lines, “being smaller at the bottom than at the top…”. Examiner interprets that the portion of the stem of the T-shape opening and the corresponding vertical portion of the I-shape spine is what is being referenced as being smaller at the bottom than at the top, however it is not immediately clear that this is the case from reading the claim. Claim 2 should be updated to clearly define what exactly is smaller at the bottom than at the top.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The drawing objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/12/2025 has been withdrawn.
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 1, 5-7, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dara Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO 2019226335 A1 – hereinafter Shentu).
Regarding claim 1, Levy teaches a non-disposable dermaplane razor (Fig. 25a,
Dermaplaning Device 300) comprising a main body having a handle portion (Fig. 21, Handle
Portion 304) and a cartridge retention portion (Fig. 21, Base Portion 306), the cartridge retention
portion comprising a cartridge opening (Fig. 38, opening shown) at a front face, and a
replaceable blade cartridge (Fig. 28, Removable Blade Assembly 330) comprising a single blade (Fig. 28, Blade 364) and a spine (Fig. 28, Blade Holder 360).
Levy fails to teach that the spine of the blade cartridge comprises an I-shape, the I-shape
comprising a horizontal top portion, a vertical middle portion and a horizontal bottom portion
and that the cartridge opening comprising a T-shape terminating at the bottom in an open slot,
the T-shape comprising a horizontal upper portion and a vertical stem portion, wherein the top
portion and middle portion of the I-shape correspond with and are positioned within the upper
portion and the stem portion of the T-shape, with the bottom portion of the I-shape configured to
be positioned outside of the slot.
However, Shentu teaches a blade cartridge (Fig. 8, Cartridge 14) with a T-shape opening
(Fig. 8, opening shown) terminating at the bottom in an open slot, the T-Shape comprising a
horizontal upper portion and a vertical stem portion, and a cartridge retention portion (Fig. 8,
upper half of Handle 12) comprising an I-shape spine (Fig. 8, Rail 40), the I-shape comprising a
horizontal top portion, a vertical middle portion, and a horizontal bottom portion, wherein the top
portion and middle portion of the I-shape correspond with and are positioned within the upper
portion and the stem portion of the T-shape, with the bottom portion of the I-shape configured to
be positioned outside of the slot (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shentu such that the T-
Shape opening is located on the cartridge retention portion, and the I-Shape spine is located on the blade cartridge as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location
as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In
re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ
7 (CCPA 1975). Flipping the locations of the opening and spine still allows the blade cartridge to
slidingly attach to the cartridge retention portion, therefore the operation of the device is not
modified. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spine of the blade cartridge of Levy
to comprise an I-shape, the I-shape comprising a horizontal top portion, a vertical middle portion
and a horizontal bottom portion and the cartridge opening of Levy to comprise a T-shape
terminating at the bottom in an open slot, the T-shape comprising a horizontal upper portion and
a vertical stem portion, wherein the top portion and middle portion of the I-shape correspond
with and are positioned within the upper portion and the stem portion of the T-shape, with the
bottom portion of the I-shape configured to be positioned outside of the slot as taught by Shentu
as a matter of design choice. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within
the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al.,
149 USPQ 47. Levy already teaches that the single blade extends downwardly from a lowest central portion of the spine (Fig. 28 of Levy), and the modification of Levy with Shentu to create the I-shaped spine would then result in the single blade extending downwardly from a lowest central portion of the horizontal bottom portion of the I-shape, as that is the lowest central portion of the I shape.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Levy and Shentu already teaches an I-shape
spine (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Levy further teaches that the cartridge (Fig. 28, Removable Blade Assembly 330)
comprises a detent (Fig. 28, Tab 352) at the top surface of the top portion of the spine (Fig. 28,
Blade Holder 360).
Regarding claim 6, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
5, wherein the detent (Fig. 28, Tab 352) is configured to be compressible against an inner top
surface (Fig. 28, Spring Loaded Bullet Pin 414) of the cartridge opening to create a friction fit of
the cartridge in the cartridge opening (Tab 352 exerts a normal force on the Spring Loaded Bullet
Pin 414, resulting in friction force in the event that an attempt is made to remove the cartridge) ,
with bottoms of the top portion of the I-shape spine pushed down against tops of undersides of
the upper portion of the T-shape opening (Levy teaches that the spine is biased downwards, and
rests on Rails 334 which extend into the opening of the cartridge retention portion (Fig. 38).
Viewing the combination of Levy and Shentu, this downward bias would cause the bottoms of
the top portion of the I-shape spine to push down against tops of undersides of the upper portion
of the T-shape opening).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Levy and Shentu does not teach the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, further comprising a cover configured to protect the
blade when not in use.
However, Shentu teaches a dermaplane razor comprising a cover (Fig. 1, Protective
Cover 16; [0026]) configured to protect the blade when not in use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu to comprise a cover configured to protect the blade when not in use as taught by
Shentu. It is well known in the art that having a cover over a shaving blade when it is not in use
is beneficial as it protects the user from accidentally cutting themselves.
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Levy and Shentu does not teach the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 15, wherein the main body further comprises one or
more projections on the cartridge connection portion that engage one or more depressions on the
interior of the cover to securely retain the cover on the main body.
However, Shentu teaches that the interior of the cover comprises one or more projections
(Fig. 1, Detents 20) that engage one or more depressions (Fig. 1, Depression 22) on the cartridge
connection portion to securely retain the cover on the main body. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
Shentu such that the depressions are located on the interior of they cover, and the projections are
located on the main body as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different
location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the
device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Flipping the locations of the depressions and the projections still
allows the cover to attach to the main body, therefore the operation of the device is not modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu such that the main body further comprises one or more projections on the cartridge
connection portion that engage one or more depressions on the interior of the cover to securely
retain the cover on the main body as taught by Shentu. Doing so is beneficial as it allow an easy
and secure snap-fit connection between the main body and the cover (Shentu, [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
1, wherein the replaceable blade cartridge (Fig. 28, Removable Blade Assembly 330) further
comprises a graspable end (Fig. 28, Nose Portion 362), wherein the graspable end extends
beyond the front face of the cartridge retention portion and comprises one or more recesses (Fig.
38, sidewall behind the nose is farther inwards than the outer edges of the nose ) for a user to
grasp the cartridge during replacement.
Regarding claim 20, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
19, wherein the graspable end comprises a stop surface (Fig. 40, inside top vertical face of Nose
Portion 362) configured to abut the front face of the cartridge retention portion.
Claims 2-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Dara Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO
2019226335 A1 – hereinafter Shentu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Albert Bresler (US 4037322 A – hereinafter Bresler).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Levy and Shentu fails to teach the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the stem of the T-shape
opening and a corresponding vertical portion of the I-shape spine are smaller at the bottom than
at the top when the cutting edge of the blade is facing downward.
However, Bresler teaches a dermaplane razor, wherein a portion of the stem of the T-
shape opening (Fig. 4, Vertical Slot 29) and a corresponding vertical portion of the spine (Fig. 5,
Sides 37 and 38) are smaller at the bottom than at the top when the cutting edge of the blade
(Fig. 5, Blade 11) is facing downwards, that the stem and the corresponding vertical portion each comprise parallel upper sections (Fig. 4 and 5, top halves of Slot 29 and Sides 37 and 38; Col. 3, lines 49-54 -- Sides 37 and 38 are intended to come into contact with the sides of the blade, and therefore be parallel when inserted into Slot 29) adjacent to top horizontal portions, and that the stem has an angled portion (Fig. 4, angled portion at the top of Slot 29) following the parallel upper section where the vertical portion extends inwardly as it extends downwardly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy and to include the limitations of claim 2 as taught by Bresler, in addition to including that the that the vertical portion of the I-shape spine has an angled portion following the parallel upper section where the vertical portion extends inwardly as it extends downwardly as a matter of design choice. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler does not teach
the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 2, wherein a portion of the T-shape opening and corresponding I-shape spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of the I-shape spine and the stem of the T-shape each comprising an angle that extends inward as it extends downward.
However, Bresler further teaches wherein a portion of the T-shape opening and corresponding spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of the spine (Fig. 5, Sides 37 and 38) and the stem of the T-shape (Fig. 4, Vertical Slot 29) each comprising an angle that extends inward as it extends downward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler such that the T-shape opening and corresponding I-shape spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of the I-shape spine and the stem of the T-shape each comprising an angle that extends inward as it extends downward as taught by Bresler as a matter of design choice. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 3, wherein a portion of the T-shape opening and corresponding I-shape spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of the I-shape spine and the stem of the T-shape each comprising an angle that extends inward as it extends downward on each side of the vertical portion of the I-shape spine and on each side of the stem of the T-shape opening (See the rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 3, wherein the cartridge further comprises a detent on the
top surface of the top portion of the I-shape spine (See the rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 7, wherein the detent is configured to be compressible
against an inner top surface of the cartridge opening to create a friction fit of the cartridge in the
cartridge opening (See the rejection of claim 6 above). Levy also teaches that the spine is biased
downwards, and rests on Rails 334 which extend into the opening of the cartridge retention
portion (Fig. 38). Viewing the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler, this downward bias
would cause the angle on the vertical portion of the I-shape spine to be pushed down against the
angle of the stem of the T-shape opening.
Regarding claim 9, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
4, wherein the cartridge further comprises a detent on the top surface of the top portion of the
spine (See the rejection of claim 5 above). The combination of Levy and Shentu already teaches
an I-shape spine (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 9, wherein the detent is configured to be compressible
against an inner top surface of the cartridge opening to create a friction fit of the cartridge in the
cartridge opening (See the rejection of claim 6 above). Levy also teaches that the spine is biased
downwards, and rests on Rails 334 which extend into the opening of the cartridge retention
portion (Fig. 38). Viewing the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler, this downward bias
would cause the angle on the vertical portion of the I-shape spine to be pushed down against the
angle of the stem of the T-shape opening.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein the bottom portion of the I-shape spine has
sides that angle inwardly as they extend downwardly in the direction that the blade extends from
the spine (See the rejection of claim 3 above).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dara
Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO 2019226335
A1 – hereinafter Shentu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott Gilman
(US 10814508 B1– hereinafter Gilman).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Levy and Shentu fails to teach the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein the main body further comprises a grip pad on
an upper surface when the blade is facing downwardly.
However, Gilman teaches a razor with a main body that comprises a grip pad (Fig. 3,
Grip Pad 205) on an upper surface when the blade is facing downwardly (the razor blade is able
to rotate 180 degrees relative to the grip pad from image shown – Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu to include the features of claim 12 as taught by Gilman. Doing so is beneficial as it
provide an ergonomic gripping surface for the user (Gilman; Col 5, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Gilman already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 12, wherein the grip pad comprises an indented area
(Fig. 3, X-shaped indents on Grip Pad 205).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Gilman already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 12, wherein the grip pad is formed of a non -slip
material (Col 4, lines 61-67) press fit or molded into an aperture on the main body (Fig. 10,
aperture containing Grip Pad 205 shown). The exact method of securing the non-slip material in
the aperture is not disclosed, however even if the prior art product was made via a different
process, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production In re Thorpe,
777 F.2d 695, 698, 22 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dara
Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO 2019226335
A1 – hereinafter Shentu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu Yang (WO
2020133131 A1– hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Levy and Shentu does not teach the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein the handle portion of the main body comprises
a non-slip surface.
However, Yang teaches a razor with a handle portion (Fig. 15, handle portion shown) of
the main body that comprises a non-slip surface (Fig. 15, Rubber Sleeve 22 – rubber is inherently
non-slip as it has a high coefficient of friction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu to include the limitations of claim 17 as taught by Yang. Doing so is beneficial as a
user is less likely to lose their grip on the razor (Yang; Page 9, Para 10).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Yang already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 17, wherein the non-slip surface comprises a sleeve
configured of a non-slip material on the handle portion of the main body (Fig. 15, Rubber Sleeve
22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the I-shape cartridge having a single blade retained in a T-shaped opening including the features of the cartridge as described in claim 1 is not obvious from the references cited in the rejection of claim 1 above. According to the applicant, the inventive cartridge is intended to be thinner at the bottom to include control of the blade by the user, and since the bottom of the cartridge of Shentu is thicker than that of the inventive catridge, the blade of Shentu cannot be used to access harder to reach places such as around the nose or ears. This argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. The specification of the claimed invention does not disclose any kind of dimensions for the cartridge of the inventive device, therefore it cannot be ascertained that the bottom of the cartridge of Shentu is thicker in relation to the inventive device. Additionally, Shentu is disclosed in its own specification as being able to shave around hard to reach areas such as the nose (Shentu, [0002]), so clearly there is no geometric feature of Shentu which would prevent the kind of shaving intended by Levy and the inventive device.
Applicant additionally argues that examiner used impermissible hindsight bias in modifying Levy in view of Shentu to include the shape design of the spine and cartridge opening without also requiring the use of two blades (rather than the single blade taught by Levy) as seen in Shentu. This argument is not persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art is entirely capable of copying a aesthetically pleasing shape of a shaving device as a design choice without also importing the exact number of blades to the inventive design. The number of blades a razor contains is entirely separate from the aesthetic design of the cartridge. Further, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The aesthetic design of the cartridge and the number of blades being totally separate features, it would not be impermissible hindsight to include one while leaving out the other.
Regarding claims 2-4, Applicant argues that Bressler does not teach the newly added limitation of parallel sides adjacent to the horizontal top portion. However, the rejection of claim 2 above highlights that Bressler does teach these parallel sides which are adjacent to the top portion. The examiner defines adjacent as “not distant: nearby”, from the definition of adjacent set forth by Merriam Webster.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights