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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 10-11, and 16-28 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12 November 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. Claim 1 introduces, “at least one interlocking feature”. The corresponding structure of the at least one interlocking feature in the present application includes recess “18” (see page 2, lines 6-7 of the present specification as originally filed). The present drawings in Fig. 5 illustrate the connector as including two recesses “18”. Moreover, claim 1 recites, “the at least one flap including a protrusion”. The protrusion is disclosed in the present application as element “20” (see page 2, lines 28-30 of the present specification as originally filed). The present drawings in Fig. 2 illustrate the connector as including two protrusions “20”. However, the protrusions “20” are never illustrated as engaging the recesses “18”. Indeed, the structure of the connector as illustrated does not appear to permit engagement of the protrusions “20” with the recesses “18”. While there is disclosure of protrusions that do engage the recesses “18” (see page 8, lines 28-29), the protrusions that engage the recesses “18” are parts of the not-claimed razor cartridge. Therefore, the feature of “actuation of the at least one flap which pushes the protrusion [of the at least one flap] out of the at least one interlocking feature” as required by claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No haptic indicator including a rubber element is illustrated in the present drawings. Therefore, the actuation surface comprising “a haptic indicator, the haptic indicator including a rubber element” as recited in claim 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. As illustrated in the present drawings, the first and second flaps are not “parallel from the proximal-distal razor connector axis”. In the view of Fig. 2, where the proximal-distal razor connector axis “24” is illustrated, the flaps “16” are angled slightly relative to the axis. Thus, while Fig. 2 illustrates the flaps “16” being ‘substantially parallel’ to the axis “24”, Fig. 2 does not illustrate the flaps “16” being exactly parallel to the axis “24” as required by claim 26. Therefore, the first and second flaps being “parallel from the proximal-distal razor connector axis” as required by claim 26 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 amendment filed 23 January 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the applicant at page 10, lines 14-15 of the marked-up specification as filed 23 January 2026 added the phrase, “The interlocking part may be the protrusion 20.” This recitation introduces new matter into the disclosure as originally filed. In the disclosure as originally filed, the interlocking part is disclosed as being a different protrusion from protrusion 20. For example, page 2 at line 32 to page 3 at line 3 of the specification as originally filed recites, “In embodiments, the at least one protrusion 20 may be configured to disconnect the razor cartridge 100 from the razor connector 10 upon actuation of the at least one flap 16 by pushing the interlocking part of the razor cartridge 100 out of the interlocking feature, in particular wherein the at least one protrusion 20 is configured to disconnect the razor cartridge 100 from the razor connector 10 upon actuation of the at least one flap 16 by pushing the razor cartridge's 100 protrusion of out of the razor connector's 10 recess 18.” (Emphasis added.) That is, in the present application as originally filed, the protrusion of the razor cartridge, not the protrusion “20” of the razor connector, is a structure corresponding to the “at least one interlocking part”. Indeed, the examiner at the first full sentence of page 5 of the Non-Final Office action mailed 12 November 2025 wrote, “The specification should explicitly state that the at least one interlocking part of the razor cartridge 100 can be a protrusion.” Since the at least one interlocking part as disclosed in the originally filed application is a protrusion of the razor cartridge, Applicant’s amendment to the specification to state that the at least one interlocking part is the protrusion “20” of the razor connector adds new matter into the disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 at line 2 recites, “a top side and bottom side”. This recitation should read – a top side and a bottom side –.
Claim 22 at line 5 recites, “a distal end of the razor connector”. Claim 22 is amended to introduce the distal end earlier in the claim, in particular at line 3. Thus, line 5 of claim 22 should read – [[a]] the distal end of the razor connector –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one interlocking feature” as recited in claim 1 (first, “feature” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a feature is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure – any structure can be referred to as a feature; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to interlock”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “interlocking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the feature); and
“at least one interlocking part” as recited in claim 1 (first, “part” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a part is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure – any structure can be referred to as a part; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “interlocking” preceding the generic placeholder “part”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “interlocking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the part) [the present specification discloses the corresponding structure as including a protrusion at page 2 at line 32 to page 3 at line 3].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 10-11, and 16-28 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.
Claim 1 at the final paragraph recites, “the at least one flap including a protrusion” and “upon actuation of the at least one flap which pushes the protrusion out of the at least one locking feature”. The at least one locking feature is introduced earlier in claim 1 as a feature of the razor cartridge that interlocks with at least one locking part of the razor cartridge. The feature of the protrusion of the at least one flap being pushed out of the at least one locking feature of the razor connector was not described in the present specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. First, this feature was not recited in the claims as originally filed. For example, claim 9 as originally filed describes that the protrusion of the razor cartridge, which is a different protrusion than the protrusion of the flap, is pushed out of the recess of the razor connector. Second, this feature was not illustrated in the drawings as originally filed as discussed in the Drawing Objections section above. Finally, the specification fails to disclose this feature. Instead, the present specification as originally filed discloses, “the at least one protrusion 20 may be configured to disconnect the razor cartridge 100 from the razor connector 10 upon actuation of the at least one flap 16 by pushing the interlocking part of the razor cartridge 100 out of the interlocking feature, in particular wherein the at least one protrusion 20 is configured to disconnect the razor cartridge 100 from the razor connector 10 upon actuation of the at least one flap 16 by pushing the razor cartridge's 100 protrusion of out of the razor connector's 10 recess 18.” (See page 2, line 32 to page 3, line 3.) That is, the present specification as originally filed discloses that the interlocking part of the razor cartridge, which can a protrusion [noting there that the protrusion of the razor cartridge is a different protrusion from the protrusion of the at least one flap], is pushed out of the interlocking feature. As such, the present application as originally filed fails to disclose that the protrusion of the at least one flap is pushed out of the at least one interlocking feature of the razor connector as now recited in claim 1. Claim 1 as amended thus introduces new matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 28 recites, “actuation of the at least one flap pushes the second protrusion out of the at least one interlocking feature”. This recitation introduces new matter. The second protrusion “20” as disclosed does not get pushed out of the at least one interlocking feature (e.g., recess “18”) as disclosed in the present application as originally filed. The same explanation provided in the preceding paragraph with respect to claim 1 is applicable to the second protrusion of claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 12 November 2025, the Applicant argues that US Pat. No. 4,446,619 to Jacobson fails to disclose that the protrusion is pushed out of the at least one interlocking feature upon actuation of the at least one flap. Instead, the Applicant asserts that “in Jacobson, the protrusion of the razor connector pushes a protrusion of the razor cartridge out of a recess” (quote from page 12 of the Remarks). The examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument. However, the examiner notes that in the present application, the protrusion “20” of the at least one flap “16” is also not pushed out of the at least one interlocking feature (the interlocking feature including recess “18”). As such, although claim 1 as amended overcomes the prior art of record, the amendments to claim 1 cause claim 1 to fail to comply with 35 USC 112(a) as explained above.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-5, 10-11, and 16-28 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. As noted in the Response to Arguments section, claim 1 as amended 23 January 2026 distinguishes over the best known prior art. However, no determination of allowability can be made for claims 1-5, 10-11, and 16-28 in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112. Indeed, the same feature in claim 1 relied upon by Applicant to overcome the prior art causes claim 1 to fail to comply with 35 USC 112(a).
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724