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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 6, 8-12, 22, and 36 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, “colors visually communicate to a distinction…to a user” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure the colors incorporate, that when viewed by any/all users, that a user will know every time there is a distinction between the blades. This communication is based on the user’s ability to receive the communication and that from viewing colors will make the determination that there is a distinction between the blades. Basically, the color’s ability to perform this communication function is dependent upon the user. Without the user, no communication function can take place. For example, if the user is blind, how can the colors perform a communicating function? The colors have the exact same structure but the user is different and, therefore, are unable to perform the function in this situation. Szczepanowski et al. (2011/0126413) teaches that functional benefits or aesthetic benefits may be communicated visually via indicia (paragraph [0086]). Claim 8 in Szczepanowski et al. disclose the indicia can be on the blade. The indicia in Szczepanowski et al. may be a design (paragraph [0051]). In light of Szczepanowski et al., the cartridge with two different colored blades in the instant application can be considered a design and may visually communicate aesthetic benefits instead of the blade distinction. If the user sees the different blade colors and aesthetic benefits are communicated, how are the colors able to communicate distinction between the blades in this situation? Again, the colors have the exact same structure but it is the user’s interpretation that is different and, therefore, the different colors are unable to perform the function in this situation. Applicant is attempting to use what a person determines from seeing different colors as a way to further limit the razor cartridge. What a person determines from seeing different colors is indefinite since it can be different every time. The function that is performed must be constant or the same each and every time and not be based on something other than the structure of the cartridge in order for the function not to be considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 22, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (2018/0264669) in view of Wexler (5,630,275) [with evidence reference Szczepanowski et al. (2011/0126413)].
With regards to claims 1-3, 6, 22, and 36, Howell discloses the invention including a cartridge having a plurality of razor blades (paragraph [0005] lines 6-8), a first blade of the plurality of blades is a first color (paragraph [0025]), a second blade of the plurality of blades is a second color (paragraph [0025]), the first and second colors are different (paragraph [0025]), the first color is on a blade body of the first blade (paragraph [0060]), and the second color is on a blade body of the second blade (paragraph [0060]), the first color has a wavelength between 380 nanometers and 740 nanometers (paragraph [0057], orange and yellow fall within this spectrum), and the colors are orange and yellow (paragraph [0057]).
However, Howell fails to disclose that the first blade has an attribute which is different than the same attribute of the second blade and the attribute is initial blade sharpness.
Wexler teaches it is known in the art of razor cartridges to have a first blade with an initial sharpness (column 7 lines 24-29) and a second blade with a different initial sharpness (“less sharp” column 7 lines 29-33). These different colors are capable of be considered “corresponding” with their respective attribute and are capable of visually communicating a distinctness between the blades to a user. [To the degree it is argued that the colors are not capable of visually communicating. Szczepanowski et al. provide evidence that indicia (paragraph [0051]) on a blade (claim 8) are capable of visually communicating with a user (paragraph [0086]).] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Howell with the different blade attributes, as taught by Wexler, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (2018/0264669) in view of Wexler (5,630,275) [with evidence reference Szczepanowski et al. (2011/0126413)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuk et al. (2007/0062047).
With regards to claim 8, Howell in view of Wexler disclose the invention including a third blade (paragraph [0005] in Howell).
However, with regards to claims 8-11, Howell in view of Wexler fail to disclose the third blade having a third color the same or different from the first or second colors.
Zhuk et al. teaches it is old and well known in the art cartridges with three blades to incorporate a third blade with a color which would be the same or different than the other colors (paragraphs [0019] and [0025]). Such a modification would allow for all three blades to be able to be clearly viewed. With modifying Howell in view of Wexler to incorporate a third blade with a third color, this third blade would incorporate the third color being disposed on the body in the same manner disclosed in Howell’s paragraph [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Howell in view of Wexler with a third blade with a third coloring, as taught by Zhuk et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (2018/0264669) in view of Wexler (5,630,275) [with evidence reference Szczepanowski et al. (2011/0126413)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Szczepanowski et al. (2011/0126413) further in view of Zhuk et al. (2007/0062047).
With regards to claim 12, Howell in view of Wexler disclose the invention including more than two blades (paragraph [0005] in Howell).
However, with regards to claim 12, Howell in view of Wexler fail to specifically disclose fourth and fifth blades.
Szczepanowski et al. teach it is known in the art of cartridges to incorporate five blades (18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Howell in view of Wexler with five blades, as taught by Szczepanowski et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claim 12, Howell in view of Wexler further in view of Szczepanowski et al. fail to disclose a third color.
Zhuk et al. teaches it is old and well known in the art cartridges with more than two blades to incorporate a third blade with a color which would be the same or different than the other colors (paragraphs [0019] and [0025]). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have applied the same color to the fourth and fifth blades. Such a modification would allow for all five blades to be able to be clearly viewed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Howell in view of Wexler further in view of Szczepanowski et al. with the blade coloring, as taught by Zhuk et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
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: 7:00 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.
11 February 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724