Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 7-11-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the embodiments section of the specification in pages 14-18 should be deleted since this section is written as claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation "the radial direction" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore it is unclear to whether the radial direction detailed in claim 6 is the same or different than the circumferential direction detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 1,600,832 to Lindgren.
Referring to claim 1, Lindgren discloses a razor handle comprising a first section – at 22,23, having a proximal end – top of 23, disposed in proximal direction of a second section – at 25, having a distal end – bottom of 25, along a proximal-distal axis – central longitudinal axis, wherein a ball bearing – at 26, is disposed between the first section – at 22,23, and the second section – at 25, along the proximal axis – see figure 1, wherein the ball bearing – at 26, is configured to allow rotation of the first section – at 22,23, relative to the second section – at 25, around the proximal-distal axis – see figure 1 and page 2 lines 7-44, a rotation limiter – at 31-32, formed of a first protrusion – at 32, located in circumferential direction – see extending from circumference of 23 – see figures 1-2, between a second protrusion – one of 31 and a third protrusion – other of items 31 – see figures 1-2 and page 1 lines 86-106, the rotation limiter – at 31-32, is located closer to the proximal end than the ball bearing – at 26 – see figures 1-2, and the rotation limiter is configured to limit a maximum degree of relative rotation that is greater than 00 and defined by the second protrusion – at 31 and the third protrusion – other of items 31, of the first section – at 22,23, relative to the second section – see figures 1-2 and page 2 lines 7-44, where when first protrusion – at 32, is disposed in one of items 31 it is between item 31 and adjacent items 31, so that rotation of the sections – at 22,23 and 25 is limited. It is noted that applicant has not positively recited in the claim that the first protrusion remains between the second and third protrusions during rotation of the first section relative to the second section. It is further noted that applicant repeats the claim language of a ball bearing disposed between the first section and the second section in line 4 of claim 1, repeated in lines 8-9 of claim 1. It is recommended to remove these claim limitations in lines 8-9.
Referring to claim 2, Lindgren et al. further discloses the first section is integrally formed with a first part of the ball bearing and/or wherein the second section – at 25, is integrally formed with a second part of the ball bearing – see recesses on/integral with the inner wall of the first section – at 25 that receive items 26 as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 3, Lindgren et al. further discloses the first part of the ball bearing comprises a first bearing race of the ball bearing – these claim limitations are not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause in parent claim 2, and the second part of the ball bearing comprises a second bearing race of the ball bearing – see the race being the recessed portion of 25 that receives – 26 as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 6, Lindgren et al. further discloses first protrusion – at 32, extends adjacent to a first bearing race – at grooves in 25 receiving item 26 – see figures 1-2, in a radial direction towards the proximal-distal axis – see length of 32 in figure 2, which extend from an outer free edge of 32, toward the axis, and the second protrusion – at any of 31, extends adjacent to a second bearing race – groove portion in the other side of 25 receiving item 26, in the radial direction away from the proximal-distal axis – see thickness of 31, extending radially outwardly from items 22,23,25 in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 7, Lindgren et al. further discloses the third protrusion – any of items 31, extends from the first bearing race – groove in 25 receiving item 26 as seen in figures 1-2, in the radial direction towards the proximal-distal axis – see thickness of protrusions at 31 which extend from an outer edge of the thickness to an inner edge of the thickness closer to the axis as seen in figure 1, or wherein the third protrusion – other of items 31, extends from the second bearing race – other portion of the grooves in 25 that receive 26, in the radial direction away from the proximal-distal axis – see thickness of 31 where item 31 extends from the inner edge of the thickness of 31 to the outer edge of the thickness of 31 along the radial direction as seen in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 8, Lindgren et al. further discloses the razor handle comprises a biasing mechanism – at 21,27,28,29,33,48, wherein the biasing mechanism is configured to rotate the first section relative to the second section towards a home position – see figure 1 page 1 lines 57-101. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed biasing mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the biasing mechanism is detailed as a protrusion and Lindgren et al. discloses a protrusion – at 27 as seen in figure 1.
Referring to claim 9, Lindgren et al. further disclose a first part – at 28, of the biasing mechanism is connected to the first bearing race – see via intervening components such as 21,23,24,25,26,48 in figure 1, and a second part – at 27,48, of the biasing mechanism is connected to the second bearing race – see via intervening components such as 21,23,24,36 in figure 1, wherein the second part of the biasing mechanism comprises a fourth protrusion – see at 27,48, extending from the first section – at 25, towards the proximal-distal axis – see at 48, into a recess disposed within the first part – at 28, of the biasing mechanism – see 27 through the recess/opening of 28 in figure 1.
Referring to claim 21, Lindgren et al. further discloses the second part of the ball bearing – see groove in 25 receiving item 26 in figures 1-2, comprises a first bearing race of the ball bearing – see figures 1-2, and the first part of the ball bearing – at 26, comprises a second bearing race of the ball bearing – see outer surface of 26 – further this portion of the claim is not required by the claim given the “or” portion of the and/or clause in parent claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 or 9 above.
Referring to claim 4, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the second bearing race is disposed closer to the proximal-distal axis relative to the first bearing race. However, applicant has not placed any criticality on the second bearing race being closer to the axis than the first bearing race in that applicant’s originally filed disclosure only states that the second bearing race may be located closer than the first bearing race without any further disclose detailing why the second bearing race should be located closer to the axis than the first bearing race. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and have the bearing races in any suitable configuration including the claimed second bearing race close to the axis than the first bearing race, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the bearings to be positioned in any desired orientation so as to not interfere with other components inside the device as desired.
Referring to claim 10, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the fourth protrusion is flexible. However, applicant places no criticality on the fourth protrusion being flexible in that as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure only states the fourth protrusion may be flexible and does not detail why the fourth protrusion would be flexible. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and add the fourth protrusion made of any suitable material including a flexible material, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the protrusion to be more easily movable into different positions/orientations as desired.
Referring to claim 22, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the maximum degree of relative rotation is 30 degrees. However, applicant places no criticality on the maximum degree of relative rotation being 30 degrees in that as seen in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification it states the degrees of relative rotation may be for example +/- 15° and the phrase “may be for example” implies other values of degree of rotation are contemplated. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and use any suitable maximum degree of rotation including the claimed 30 degrees, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to move the device into different positions/orientations as desired. Further, it is noted that there is no 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description or enablement issue as related to the 30 degrees maximum rotation in that as seen in paragraph [0045] of applicant’s specification the +/- 150 would allow for rotation clockwise and counter clockwise for a total of 300.
Referring to claim 23, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the razor handle is made of a photopolymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and make the razor handle out of any suitable material including the claimed photopolymer, so as to yield the predictable result making the device both durable and lightweight for repeated use.
Referring to claim 24, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the razor handle is further made of a thermoplastic polymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and make the razor handle out of any suitable material including the claimed thermoplastic polymer, so as to yield the predictable result making the device both durable and lightweight for repeated use.
Referring to claim 25, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the razor handle is further made of a thermoplastic elastomer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and make the razor handle out of any suitable material including the claimed thermoplastic elastomer, so as to yield the predictable result making the device both durable, lightweight and resilient for repeated use. It is noted that there is no 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description or enablement issues regarding the handle made of thermoplastic elastomer in that as seen in paragraph [0053] of applicant’s specification it states thermoplastic elastomers can be made via a solid material being liquified and subsequently resolidified for manufacturing, for example extrusion and processable by additive manufacturing technologies such as fused filament fabrication and/or selective laser melting and applicant discloses the handle can be made via extrusion in paragraph [0019] of applicant’s originally filed specification and made via fuse filament fabrication and laser melting/sintering as seen in claim 20.
Referring to claim 26, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the ball bearing is made of a photopolymer or a thermoplastic polymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and make the ball bearing out of any suitable material including the claimed photopolymer or thermoplastic polymer, so as to yield the predictable result making the device both durable and lightweight for repeated use. It is noted that there is no 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description or enablement issue regarding the ball bearing being made of photopolymer or thermoplastic polymer in that as seen in paragraph [0042] of applicant’s originally filed specification the ball bearing can be integral with portions of the handle which are detailed as being made of photopolymer or thermoplastic polymer in applications originally filed specification.
Referring to claim 27, Lindgren et al. does not disclose the biasing mechanism is closer to the proximal end than the ball bearing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and have the biasing mechanism at any desired location including closer to the proximal end than the ball bearing as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for easier axial adjustment of the components as desired during use.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,596,866 to Saker et al.
Referring to claim 13, Lindgren et al. does not disclose a razor cartridge, wherein the razor cartridge is releasably attached to the razor handle, via a pivotable connection or a non-pivotable connection. Saker et al. does disclose a razor cartridge – at 2, wherein the razor cartridge is releasably attached to the razor handle – at 12,14 – see figures 5-6, via a pivotable connection or a non-pivotable connection – at 30 – see figure 6. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and add the razor cartridge of Saker et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for an easier replacement of the razor blades as desired.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,033,152 to Althaus.
Referring to claim 14, Lindgren et al. does not disclose a razor cartridge, wherein the razor cartridge is integrally formed with the razor handle, via a pivotable connection or a non-pivotable connection. Althaus does disclose a razor cartridge – at 2, wherein the razor cartridge is integrally formed with the razor handle – at 1, via a pivotable connection or a non-pivotable connection – see at 2 in figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and add the razor cartridge of Althaus, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for an easier replacement of the razor blades as desired.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0039100 to Gratsias et al.
Referring to claim 17, Lindgren et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a razor handle as detailed in claim 1- see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier. Lindgren et al. does not disclose manufacturing the razor handle using a computer controlled manufacturing system. Gratsias et al. does disclose manufacturing a razor handle – at 2,7, using a computer controlled manufacturing system – see 3D printer system detailed in figures 9-11 and paragraphs [0073]-[0083] and see paragraph [0019] detailing additive manufacturing, material jetting and laser sintering. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Lindgren et al. and add the computer controlled manufacturing of Gratsias et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the razor handle to be produced more quickly and efficiently as desired.
Referring to claim 20, Lindgren et al. discloses a razor handle as detailed in claim 1 – see the rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier. Lindgren et al. does not disclose the razor handle is a model to be used via a manufacturing system. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Lindgren et al. and use the handle as a model for a manufacturing system as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for mass production and/or quicker production of razor handles as desired. Lindgren et al. further does not disclose a computer controlled manufacturing system to manufacture the razor handle. Gratsias et al. does disclose manufacturing a razor handle – at 2,7, using a computer controlled manufacturing system – see 3D printer system detailed in figures 9-11 and paragraphs [0073]-[0083]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Lindgren et al. and add the computer controlled manufacturing of Gratsias et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the razor handle to be produced more quickly and efficiently as desired. It is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed computer-controlled manufacturing system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the computer-controlled manufacturing system is detailed as additive manufacturing, material jetting, fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering and Gratsias et al. discloses additive manufacturing, material jetting, stereolithography and laser sintering as seen in paragraph [0019].
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 7-11-25 obviates the claim objections detailed in the last office action dated 6-6-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 7-11-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claim 19 detailed in the last office action dated 6-6-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 7-11-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3-7 and 11-19 detailed in the last office action dated 6-6-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Lindgren et al. reference US 1600832 discloses a first protrusion – at 32, located in circumferential direction – see extending from circumference of 23 – see figures 1-2, between a second protrusion – one of 31 and a third protrusion – other of items 31 – see figures 1-2 and page 1 lines 86-106, the rotation limiter – at 31-32, is located closer to the proximal end than the ball bearing – at 26 – see figures 1-2, and the rotation limiter is configured to limit a maximum degree of relative rotation that is greater than 00 and defined by the second protrusion – at 31 and the third protrusion – other of items 31, of the first section – at 22,23, relative to the second section – see figures 1-2 and page 2 lines 7-44, where when first protrusion – at 32, is disposed in one of items 31 it is between item 31 and adjacent items 31, so that rotation of the sections – at 22,23 and 25 is limited.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-4, 6-10, 13, 14, 17, and 20, applicant relies upon the same arguments/remarks related to claim 1 discussed earlier.
Regarding new claims 21-27, see the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this office action.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643