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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of razor blades fitted to the razor cartridge (see at least claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
the limitation “curved, when viewed in plan” is unclear, as it appears to require the razor to be positioned in an indefinite, unclaimed orientation; the tool is handheld and capable of being utilized in a variety of orientations, therefore it is unclear if the cutting edge is intended to be curved only when viewed in plan – Examiner interprets that the cutting edge is curved regardless of what orientation it is positioned in
the limitation “arced, when viewed from the front” is unclear, as it appears to require the razor to be positioned in an indefinite, unclaimed orientation; the tool is handheld and capable of being utilized in a variety of orientations, therefore it is unclear if the cutting edge is intended to be arced only when viewed from the front – Examiner interprets that the cutting edge is arced regardless of what orientation it is positioned in
Claim 2: “the razor blade” should be amended to read “the at least one razor blade”
Claim 3: “a plurality of razor blades are” should be amended to read “the at least one razor blade includes a plurality of razor blades, wherein the plurality of razor blades is”
Claim 4: it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “the razor blade” – this limitation should be amended to read “the plurality of razor blades”; Examiner notes that for purposes of examination, it is presumed to be intended that “the razor blade” refers to the plurality of razor blades
Claim 7:
“the razor blade” should be amended to read “one of the plurality of razor blades”
the limitation “the pivot axis being above the curved cutting edge of the razor blade when viewed from the side” is unclear, as it appears to require the razor to be positioned in an indefinite, unclaimed orientation; the tool is handheld and capable of being utilized in a variety of orientations, including ones that do not correspond with this term – Examiner recommends utilizing terms that are true regardless of orientation
the limitation “the pivot axis being … between the midpoint and the two ends of the curved cutting edge when viewed from above “ is unclear, as it appears to require the razor to be positioned in an indefinite, unclaimed orientation; the tool is handheld and capable of being utilized in a variety of orientations, including ones that do not correspond with this term – Examiner recommends utilizing terms that are true regardless of orientation
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "a cutting edge which is curved … when viewed in plan, and arced, when viewed from the front" in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean two different types of structures, as further explained in the specification (see pg. 10, lines 31-32 of the instant specification: "a curved blade formed from a portion of a cylinder, although curved as such, does not define an arc"), while the accepted meaning is the two terms have significant overlap. As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an arc can be "something arched or curved" or "a curved path." Therefore, this limitation makes it unclear as to whether or not the two terms are describing the same structure or different structures.
Further, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “pre-formed as a segment of a cone to be curved”. First, the cone is not positively recited, therefore it is not clear how it relates to the claim. Does the limitation require that the segment is formed from a cone that has yet to be curved, i.e., the cone is “unrolled” into a flat shape, and the segment is formed from this flat shape? Must the segment simply have a curved shape as if formed from a cone? Or is the segment required to be formed as a cone before being cut out or otherwise manufactured as a razor blade? Second, is the cutting edge formed as a segment of a cone? Or is the entire razor blade formed as a segment of a cone? It is unclear which of these structures is intended to be “pre-formed as a segment of a cone”. Next, it is unclear what portion of the cone the segment must be formed from, or if any portion is sufficient. Examiner interprets that any portion of the cone fulfills this limitation, so long as the segment is capable of being curved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wain (US 20040020053).
Regarding claim 1, Wain discloses a razor comprising: a razor cartridge fitted with at least one razor blade having a cutting edge (blade unit 2 includes a plurality of blades 16, each of which comprise sharpened edges 17; see paragraph [0041] and fig. 2) which is pre-formed as a segment of a cone to be curved, when viewed in plan (blades 16 are formed from flexible strips of metal which may correspond to a segment of a cone – are curved in a plan view; see paragraph [0041] and fig. 11), and arced, when viewed from the front (blades 16 form an arc shape when viewed from the front; see fig. 10), the razor blade in use being angled relative to a surface to be shaved (blades 16 are angled relative to a shaving surface; see figs. 10 and 11), the curved cutting edge defining an arc with two ends and a midpoint (edges 17 each comprise an arc shape with ends E and a center M; see paragraph [0040] and fig. 10), an orientation of the razor blade configured to be movable between a first position, a second position, and a third position (blades 16 are configured for use in a flat orientation, a convex orientation, and a concave orientation; see figs. 5, 8, and 10); wherein the first position is configured to correspond to a flat surface to be shaved, in which the two ends and the midpoint of the arc are on a single plane to define a flat shaving profile (when none of spring webs 14 are bent, center M and ends E are located on a single plane; see fig. 5); wherein the second position is configured to correspond to a convex surface to be shaved, in which the midpoint of the arc is lifted relative to the two ends of the arc, to define a convex shaving profile (when spring webs 14 at the ends of blade unit 2 are bent, center M is lifted relative to ends E; see fig. 10); and wherein the third position is configured to correspond to a concave surface to be shaved, in which the midpoint of the arc is lowered relative to the two ends of the arc, to define a concave shaving profile (when spring webs 14 towards the center of blade unit 2 are bent, center M is lowered relative to ends E; see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Wain discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wain further discloses wherein the razor blade includes a razor blade flange extending transversely to the curved cutting edge, to facilitate fitment of the razor blade to the razor cartridge (strips 18 extend transversely relative to edges 17 and are configured to engage with notches 20, 21 to secure the blades to the cartridge; see paragraph [0041] and fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Wain discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wain further discloses wherein a plurality of razor blades are fitted to the razor cartridge, the razor cartridge in turn being removably securable to a handle (blade unit 2 includes a plurality of blades 16, and blade unit 2 may be removably secured to handle 1; see paragraph [0037] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wain discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Wain further discloses wherein the razor blade is fixed relative to the handle (blade unit 2 is securely fastened to handle 1 via support platform 3; see paragraph [0037] and fig. 1), in which the shaving profiles corresponding to the first, second, and third positions are achieved by varying an angle of the handle, and thus the razor blade (the flat, convex, and concave orientations are achieved by forces acting on the resilient structure of spring webs 12, 14 such that blades 16 can be deflected relative to handle 1 to adapt to skin contours; see paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Wain discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Wain further discloses wherein the razor includes a pivoting arrangement (spring webs 12, 14; see figs. 2 and 3) to automatically pivot each of the plurality of razor blades between the first, second, and third positions, as the razor slides across the surface being shaved (the flat, convex, and concave orientations are achieved by forces acting on the resilient structure of spring webs 12, 14 such that blades 16 can be deflected relative to handle 1 to adapt to skin contours; see paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Wain discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Wain further discloses wherein the pivoting arrangement includes spaced apart, inwardly facing pins extending from head-securing arms provided at a razor cartridge end of the handle (pins 138 extend from coil springs 112 formed at a cartridge end of handle 101; see fig. 17), the pins being arranged to accommodate complementary recesses defined in end side walls of the razor cartridge (pins 138 accommodate recesses formed in arms 136; see annotated portion of fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wain discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Wain further discloses wherein the pins define a pivot axis therebetween (axis A is located between pins 138; see fig. 16), the pivot axis being above the curved cutting edge of the razor blade (depending on the orientation of the razor, axis A is located above blades 16; see fig. 16), when viewed from the side, and between the midpoint and the two ends of the curved cutting edge, when viewed from above (when viewed from above, axis A is located between center M and ends E; see fig. 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Wain does not disclose the limitations of the claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant states that the blade is pre-formed into a segment of a cone (see pg. 7 of remarks). First, Examiner notes the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection related to this limitation as described above. In view of this rejection, Examiner further notes that the segment is not required to be from any particular portion of a cone – therefore, as best understood, even a segment formed from the planar bottom of a cone would fulfill this limitation, so long as the razor blade having a cutting edge could be curved. It is the Examiner’s position that any flexible blade could be formed as a segment of a cone, since the segment is not required to be from any specific portion of a cone. Therefore, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4459744 to Esnard, drawn to a razor blade apparatus and method; US 20150360375 to Wertz, drawn to a shaving razor; US 4720917 to Solow, drawn to a flexible blade contour razor; US 5674234 to McCool, drawn to a flexible surgical razor; and US 5628759 to McCool, drawn to a flexible surgical razor.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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, 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights