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 accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 7 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 10-11, 16-18, 22-24, 26-27, and 29-33 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 23 February 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under PCT Article 7 as lacking clarity because: Claims 31 and 32 require the use of a different elastomer in the connection shoulder vs. in the at least one flap and the protrusion. However, in the present drawings (see, e.g., Fig. 4), only a single cross-sectional hatching is indicated, such that only a single material is illustrated throughout the razor connector. The drawings fail to illustrate the features of claims 31 and 32, as is required for an understanding of the invention. The extent of the different elastomer in the connection should compared to other components is unclear. Fig. 4 suggests that a single polymer can fulfill the requirements of claims 31 and 32, in which case the examiner would interpret claims 31 and 32 in a manner potentially broader than the conventional broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 31 and 32. Since there is a lack of clarity regarding whether the different elastomer is provided, the drawings are objected to.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at lines 8-9 recites, “a proximal section, a distal section, and a protrusion configured to extend towards the razor cartridge”. This recitation should read -- a proximal section, a distal section, and a protrusion, the protrusion configured to extend towards the razor cartridge -- to make clear that only the protrusion is required to extend toward the razor cartridge, rather than each of the proximal section, the distal section, and the protrusion being configured to extend toward the razor cartridge.
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).
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 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(s) 18, 22, 26-27, and 33 is/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 18 recites, “a distal end” of the razor connector. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between the “distal end” of claim 18 and the “distal end” of the razor connector as previously introduced in claim 1 at line 11 is unclear. First, a structure can have multiple ‘distal ends’, as implicitly acknowledged by the Applicant in consideration of claims 16 and 17 (i.e., claim 16 introduces “a distal end of a receiving head”, where the receiving head as disclosed is part of the razor connector, and claim 17 introduces “a distal end of the at least one flap”, where the at least one flap is also part of the razor connector – thus, the Applicant acknowledges that the razor connector can have multiple distal ends). However, in view of claim 18 using identical language to claim 1 in introducing “a distal end” of the razor connector, it is unclear whether claim 18 requires a second distal end of the razor connector. Alternatively, does claim 18 require that the distal end of claim 18 is the same as the distal end of claim 1? Alternatively still, does claim 18 permit the distal end of claim 18 to be either of a new distal end and the same distal end as previously introduced? Since the relationship between the various distal ends of the razor connector is unclear, claim 18 is indefinite.
Claim 22 recites, “a distal end” of the razor connector. This recitation is indefinite because the relationship between the “distal end” of claim 22 and the “distal end” previously introduced in claim 1 is unclear for the same reasons as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Note that claims 26-27 depend from claim 22, and are thus also indefinite due to including the indefinite limitation of claim 22.
Claim 33 recites, “the at least one flap is comprises a wall section”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires that the flap “is” a wall section, or whether the claim requires that that the flap “comprises” the wall section. The claim recites “is comprises”, which appears to be a typographical error. However, it is unclear whether, when correcting the error, the Applicant desires to delete “is” or whether the Applicant desires to delete “comprises”. The distinction is important because if the at least one flap “comprises” a wall section, the at least one flap can additionally comprise other sections. However, if the at least one flat “is” the wall section, then the flap arguably cannot comprise other sections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-11, 16-18, 23, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,446,619 to Jacobson in view of US Pat. No. 2022/0379509 A1 to Bruno et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2020/0180177 A1 to Bunnell et al.
Regarding claim 1, Jacobson discloses a razor connector (positioned atop razor handle 2 in Fig. 1) configured to connect a razor cartridge s to a razor handle 2 (see Figs. 4-5), the razor connector comprising:
at least one interlocking feature (the feature being the recess at reference character 20 in Fig. 1; hereinafter ‘recess 20’ for brevity) configured to interlock with at least one interlocking part (the interlocking part being protrusion d’) of the razor cartridge s (see the interlocking of the recess 20 and the protrusion d’ in Fig. 4; see also col. 2, lines 51-53);
at least one flap 30 configured to disconnect the razor cartridge s from the razor connector upon actuation (see Fig. 5 and col. 2, lines 54-63; in an alternative interpretation, the ‘flap’ can be considered as only the portion of element 30 above hinge 36), the at least one flap 30 comprising a proximal section (as one option, the section below hinge 36 relative to Fig. 4), a distal section (as one option, the section above hinge 36 relative to Fig. 4; in an alternative interpretation, the distal section can be above bridge portion 44 and the proximal section can be below bridge portion 44), and a protrusion (the protrusion indicated in an annotated Fig. below; hereinafter referred to as ‘protrusion 42’ for brevity) configured to extend towards the razor cartridge (see Fig. 4; the protrusion 42 extends towards the razor cartridge s because the protrusion 42 has a direction of extent from its lower surface relative to Fig. 4 to its upper surface relative to Fig. 4, and this direction of extent is toward the razor cartridge s – e.g., following along the left surface of the protrusion 42 relative to Fig. 4, the protrusion 42 extends toward the razor cartridge s), wherein, upon actuation of the at least one flap 30 (i.e., when the flap 30 is moved from the configuration in Fig. 4 to the configuration in Fig. 5), the distal section is configured to move toward a distal end of the razor connector (see the annotated Figs. 4 and 5 below, which show that upon actuator of the at least one flap 30, a portion of the distal section moves from below the indicated ‘line’ to above the indicated ‘line’, which movement is in a direction toward the distal end of the razor connector, where the distal end of the razor connector is at a top of the razor connection, such that upward movement of the distal section that occurs between the positions of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 is movement toward the distal end of the razor connector) and the protrusion 42 of the at least one flap 30 is configured to disconnect the razor cartridge s from the razor connector by pushing the at least one interlocking part of the razor cartridge s out of the at least one interlocking feature (compare Figs. 4 and 5; see also col. 2, lines 54-63).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
798
907
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jacobson discloses that the at least one interlocking feature is a recess 20 (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobson discloses that the at least one flap 30 is integrally formed with the at least one interlocking feature (see the cross-section in Fig. 5 indicating a single material formed both the flap 30 and the interlocking feature; see also col. 2, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 5, Jacobson discloses that the razor connector is a one-piece part (see the cross-section in Fig. 5 indicating a single material formed both the flap and the interlocking feature; see also col. 2, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobson discloses that the protrusion 42 is configured to preload the razor cartridge when the razor cartridge is connected to the razor connector (see Fig. 1; first, note that the claim is only describing a configuration of the protrusion 42, not a configuration of any cartridge; second, note that no cartridge is required by the claim, and further cartridges of various configurations are available; in view of these facts, the protrusion 42 of Jacobson is configured to preload a cartridge when the geometry of the cartridge is such that installation of the cartridge on the razor connector produces a downward force on the protrusion, in which case the resiliency of the flap 30 causes the flap 30 to urge the protrusion upward relative to Fig. 1, into contact with the cartridge to preload the cartridge; put another way, the protrusion is configured to preload a razor cartridge at least when the razor cartridge on a right side of end ‘3’ extends below the end ‘3’).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobson discloses that the razor connector comprises two flaps opposing one another (see Fig. 1, considering flap 30 as being above the hinge 36 as discussed as one option in the rejection of claim 1 above, a second flap 32 is below the hinge 36, such that the flaps 30 and 32 are ‘opposing one another’ relative to the hinge 36).
Regarding claim 16, Jacobson discloses the at least one flap 30 is arranged in a proximal direction of a distal end of a receiving head 6 (see Fig. 1, the distal end of the receiving head 6 is an upper end, and the ‘proximal direction’ is toward a bottom of the handle 2, such that the flap 30 being lower than the receiving head 6 satisfies this limitation).
Regarding claim 17, Jacobson discloses that the protrusion 42 of the at least one flap 30 is arranged at a distal end (i.e., an upper end relative to Fig. 1) of the at least one flap 30 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Jacobson discloses that the razor connector includes a distal end and a proximal end (a top end and a bottom end of the razor connector relative to Fig. 1), wherein the distal end and the proximal end define a proximal-distal razor connector axis (see one option of the ‘proximal-distal’ axis in the annotated Fig. below; this axis passes through a distal-most portion of the element 6 and through a point along the proximal end), wherein the at least one flap 30 comprises at least one actuation surface 38 (alternatively, the actuation surface can be considered as the surface receiving the lead line for reference character 30 in Fig. 5, noting that a user is able to press this surface to actuate the flap because the surface is outward facing) configured to be actuated by a user to release the razor cartridge s (see Fig. 5 and col. 2, lines 54-63; one manner in which the surface is ‘configured to be actuated by a user’ is being outwardly exposed; another manner in which the surface is ‘configured to be actuated by a user’ is being textured), the at least one actuation surface 38 is disposed substantially parallel to the proximal-distal razor connector axis (see the position of the surface 38 in Fig. 5; note also that ‘substantially’ is a broad term per MPEP 2173.05(b); additionally, the present specification uses the phrase “substantially parallel or parallel” at page 10, lines 19-25, such that the present specification acknowledges that “substantially parallel” encompasses intentional deviations from parallel, and also that the present specification also at page 10, lines 19-25 contrasts “substantially parallel” with the surface being orthogonal to the axis, such that the present specification suggests that “substantially parallel” encompasses a large deviation from parallel), and wherein the at least one actuation surface faces away from the proximal-distal razor connector axis (see the annotated Fig. below). [Alternatively, note that the alternative actuation surface being interpreted as the surface receiving the lead line for reference character ‘30’ in Fig. 1 is also substantially parallel to the proximal-distal razor connector axis in the position shown in Fig. 5, such that the alternative actuation surface provides another option for Jacobson disclosing the features of claim 18.]
PNG
media_image3.png
681
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Jacobson discloses a razor system comprising the razor connector substantially according to claim 1 (see the note following the modification of Jacobson below) and a razor cartridge s, wherein the razor cartridge s is releasably attached to the razor connector (see Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 29, Jacobson discloses that the at least one flap 30 is connected to a receiving head 4 & 6 at a connection shoulder (see Figs. 4 and 5, where the connection shoulder includes hinge portion 46; this portion is considered as a ‘connection shoulder’ because the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘shoulder’ includes a rounded or sloping part where the neck joins the body – at the connection shoulder of Jacobson, a neck including an upper portion of receiving head 4 & 6 is joined to a body including a lower portion of receiving head 4 & 6; either element 44 can be considered as part of the flap, or alternatively the connection can be via element 44 as an intermediary part, noting that consistent with the present application at page 1, lines 16-17 a connection can involve an intermediary part), and wherein the at least one flap performs a hinge-type movement relative to the receiving head 4 & 6 (compare Figs. 4 and 5 – the flap pivots relative to the receiving head, which pivoting is an example of ‘a hinge-type movement’ consistent with Applicant’s definition of the ‘a hinge-type movement’ at page 17, lines 33-34), the connection shoulder acting as an axis of rotation for the at least one flap (see the axis of rotation at hinge portion 46 by comparing Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 30, Jacobson discloses that the receiving head 4 & 6 is configured to receive a connector sleeve h of the razor cartridge s (compare Figs. 4 and 5), and wherein the at least one flap is arranged in a proximal direction of a distal end of the receiving head 4 & 6 (the distal end of the receiving head 4 & 6 is atop element 6 relative to Fig. 4, and the flat is proximal of this distal end).
Jacobson fails to disclose any ability of the razor cartridge ‘s’ to pivot. Regarding claimed features, Jacobson fails to disclose: a tongue, configured to allow pivotable movement of the razor cartridge relative to the razor handle as required by claim 1; that the tongue is a flexible tongue as required by claim 2; and that the tongue extends from the distal end of the razor connector and along the proximal-distal razor connector axis as required by claim 18.
Bruno, though, teaches a razor connector 120 (see Fig. 1) that includes a tongue 130, where the tongue 130 is configured to allow pivotable movement of a razor cartridge 500 relative to a razor handle 100 (see Fig. 4 showing a pivot axis 498, and see also paragraphs 28-30). [Claim 1] Bruno also teaches: that the tongue 130 is a flexible tongue 130 (see paragraph 36, where the tongue is a ‘spring element’ that ‘deflects’ and exerts a ‘progressively increasing return torque’) [claim 2]; and that the tongue 130 extends from a distal end of the razor connector (see Fig. 2, where the ‘distal end’ defines a U-shape indentation in the area in which the lead line for reference character 130 is position) and along a proximal-distal razor connector axis (see Fig. 3, where the ‘proximal-distal razor connector axis’ corresponds to axis 32) [claim 18]. Also, relevant to claim 27, which claim is rejected below in view of at least one additional reference, Bruno teaches that the tongue 130 has a rectangular cross-section (see Figs. 1-2, where shape of the cross-section of the tongue 130 is evident from the shape of the distal end of the tongue 130). Bruno teaches that providing a razor cartridge with a pivoting ability is advantageous in order to improve razor performance (e.g., shaving closeness and glide) by facilitating conformance between the skin surface and the shaving plane (see paragraph 2). Further, Bruno teaches that providing a tongue that returns a razor cartridge to a neutral position as an integral, one-piece part of the razor connector and handle is advantageous in order to “mitigate manufacturing challenges, increased manufacturing costs, and/or additional modes of mechanical failure” compared to implementing a handle with multiple components (see paragraph 28). Finally, although Bruno teaches a different style of connection between the razor cartridge and the razor connector compared to Jacobson, it is regardless known in the art to provide a razor connector that is received in a socket of a cartridge in a similar manner to the connector of Jacobson with a tongue that also biases a cartridge to a neutral position (see, e.g., tongue 38 of Bunnell shown in Fig. 3, which biases a cartridge portion 16 about axis 24 per paragraph 29). Bruno’s teachings of making the tongue integral with the connector though, are an improvement over the tongue of Bunnell for the reasons explained at paragraph 28 of Bruno.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jacobson to include a cartridge having a pivotal portion as well as to provide the razor connector of Jacobson with a flexible tongue, where the tongue is integral with the razor connector and where the tongue extends from the distal end of the connector of Jacobson along the proximal-distal razor connector axis, in view of the teachings of Bruno. First, providing the cartridge with a flexible portion is advantageous to improve shaving performance compared to the fixed position cartridge of Jacobson because the pivoting allows the cartridge to better conform to a user’s skin. Second, in modifying Jacobson to include a pivotal cartridge, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the connector of Jacobson with an integral, flexible tongue in view of the teachings of Bruno. This modification is advantageous to bias the razor back to a neutral position and to prevent the cartridge from freely pivoting on the connector (which would result in any miniscule force moving the cartridge to a most-pivoted position, at which point no additional pivoting would be possible and the purpose of the pivoting action would be defeated). The obviousness of these modification is further evidenced by Bunnell, which teaches that a tongue can be provided to a distal end of a connector received in a socket of a cartridge, similar to the configuration of Jacobson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to structure the tongue integrally with the connector, rather than as a separate piece attached to the connector as taught by Bunnell, because Bruno teaches manufacturing advantages (see paragraph 28) that arise from making the tongue integral.
Regarding claim 23, Jacobson, as modified above, discloses a razor system comprising the razor connector according to claim 1 (see the discussion of claim 1 above) and a razor cartridge (see the cartridge s of Jacobson), wherein the razor cartridge s is releasably attached to the razor connector (compare Figs. 4 and 5 of Jacobson; see also col. 2, lines 54-63 of Jacobson).
Claim(s) 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as modified by Bruno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 6,122,826 to Coffin et al.
Regarding claim 22, Jacobson, as modified, discloses that the razor connector has a top side and a bottom side (left and right facing sides of the razor connector relative to Fig. 5 of Jacobson) , wherein the razor connector includes a distal end and a proximal end (an upper end and a lower end of the razor connector relative to Fig. 5 of Jacobson), wherein the distal end and the proximal end define a proximal-distal razor connector axis (see the annotated Fig. included below the discussion of Jacobson’s teachings related to claim 18 above),and wherein the tongue extends from the distal end of the razor connector (see the modification of Jacobson in view of Bruno applied to above).
Regarding claim 26, Jacobson, as modified, discloses that the at least one flap includes a first flap and a second flap (see Fig. 1, considering flap 30 as being above the hinge 36 as discussed as one option in the rejection of claim 1 above, a second flap 32 is below the hinge 36, with the first and second flaps being joined to one another at hinge 36), wherein the first flap and the second flap are positioned equidistant from the proximal-distal connector axis (see the annotated Fig. below; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wherein the first flap and the second flap are positioned equidistant from the proximal-distal connector axis” is satisfied so long as some portion of the first flap is equidistant from the connector axis with respect to some portion of the second flat – i.e., the claim is satisfied if some portion of the first flap is the same distance from the connector axis as some portion of the second flap; in the annotated Fig. below, portions of the first and second flaps through which the right line passes are equidistant from the connector axis).
PNG
media_image4.png
579
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jacobson, as modified, fails to disclose that the tongue comprises a first section extending parallel to the proximal-distal razor connector axis along the bottom side of the razor connector and a second section diverging towards the top side of the razor connector as required by claim 22.
Coffin, though, teaches a razor connector 10 having a tongue 20 that biases a razor cartridge (see Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 33-40), where the tongue 20 includes a first section (between flexure point 21 and notch 19) that extends parallel to a proximal-distal razor connector axis 25 along a bottom side of the razor connector 10 (see Fig. 1, where the side facing out of the page is a ‘bottom’ side; note that a razor can be held in a variety of orientations so the side that is ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ is subject to change based on the position in which the razor is positioned; as such, ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ merely are required to be opposite each other in the absence of any other limitation requiring any particular features that define a ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ side) and a second section (between flexure points 21 and 22) diverging toward a top side of the razor connector (see Fig. 1, where the ‘top side’ faces into the page). [Claim 22] Coffin teaches that tongue members can be provided in a variety of geometries (compare the embodiments of Figs. 1, 4, and 5), and Coffin teaches that a tongue can be provided with or without flexure points (the embodiment of Fig. 1 including flexure points, whereas the embodiment of Fig. 4 and col. 3, lines 1-3 discloses that flexure points are not required).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the tongue of Jacobson, as modified, to have a geometry that includes a first section extending parallel to the proximal-distal connector axis along the bottom side and a second section diverging towards the top side in view of the teachings of Coffin. This modification is obvious because it is a mere change in shape of the tongue member, and 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. This rationale is particularly relevant in the present case because Coffin teaches multiple, alternative options for the geometry of the spring member, where each geometry performs the same function of biasing the cartridge back to the neutral position. Moreover, an advantage of this modification is the ability for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the locations of the flexure points of the tongue of Fig. 1 of Coffin, thus enabling the force acting on the cartridge to be tailored to the requirements of some particular group of users. By altering the positions of the flexure points, different spring stiffness can be provided (e.g., shorting the distance between flexure points to increase stiffness, or lengthening the distance flexure points to decrease stiffness, depending on the preferences of some group of users).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as modified by Bruno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3 372 359 A1 to Gratsias.
Jacobson, as modified, discloses that the razor connector can be formed as a one-piece structure (see col. 2, lines 27-30). Jacobson, however, merely contemplates integrally molding the connector with the handle. As a result, Jacobson, as modified, fails to disclose a process for manufacturing the razor connector that comprises additive manufacturing, material jetting, fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and/or selective laser sintering as required by claim 24.
Gratsias, though, teaches a process for manufacturing a razor connector 8 (the razor connector 8 of Gratsias is part of the handle 2 per paragraph 18 and as indicated by the cross-section of Fig. 3; the process including material jetting), where the process includes material jetting (see paragraph 15) [claim 24]. Gratsias teaches that additive manufacturing, including material jetting, is advantageous compared to known methods such as molding because additive manufacturing can be more material efficient (see paragraphs 2, 4, and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the connector and handle of Jacobson, as modified, from additive manufacturing such as material jetting rather than from molding because additive manufacturing can be more material efficient, thus saving materials and manufacturing expenses.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as modified by Bruno and Coffin as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US Design Pat. No. D775,423 S to Bae.
Regarding claim 27, Jacobson, as modified, discloses that the tongue has a rectangular cross-section (see the tongue of Bruno incorporated into Jacobson in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Jacobson, as modified, fails to disclose that a corner of the rectangular cross-section is round.
Bae teaches a tongue that has rounded corners (see the upper right and left corners of the tongue in Fig. 4).
Therefore, since Jacobson, as modified, discloses a tongue that is rectangular, and since Bae teaches that a tongue can have rounded corners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tongue of Jacobson, as modified, with at least one rounded corner in view of the teachings of Bae. This modification is merely a change in cross-sectional shape of the tongue of Jacobson, as modified, and 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. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art is mechanical engineer, and it is known to a mechanical engineer that a square corner can produce a stress riser, and that a rounded corner reduces the concentration of stresses. Therefore, this modification is further advantageous to reduce stress risers and make the tongue a more robust component.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as modified by Bruno as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 5,794,308 to Rentsch et al. and US Pat. No. 8,480,166 B1 to Readwin et al.
Regarding claim 33, Jacobson, as modified, discloses that the at least one flap 30 is comprises [sic] a wall section (the wall section being defined by leg 34) forming an open cavity (see Fig. 1, where the cavity is between elements 4 and 34 and is open in directions into and out of the page).
Jacobson, as modified, however, fails to disclose that the connection shoulder comprises a thermoplastic elastomer having a lower modulus of elasticity than a thermoplastic elastomer of the at least one flap as required by claim 31 and that the protrusion comprises a thermoplastic polymer having a higher modulus of elasticity than the thermoplastic elastomer of the connection shoulder as required by claim 32.
Rentsch is pertinent to the problem of reducing the complexity of a mechanism requiring multiple components (which is a problem faced by the present inventor – see page 1 at lines 19-23), in view of Rentsch teaching a living hinge that is integral with two parts 1 and 2 (as opposed to a hinge assembly having, for example, a separate pin to which two parts are attached, where the living hinge allows for forming a hinge with a single part rather than three parts). Rentsch teaches forming components of the living hinge with a thermoplastic polymer (see col. 6, lines 29-33). Rentsch teaches that stiffness in bending regions (in Rentsch, these regions are identified with reference characters 9 and 10) should differ from the stiffness in other parts, which can be achieved by providing the bending regions with a different material having a lower modulus of elasticity (see page 16, line 63 to page 17, line 13; note also that page 17 at lines 18-20 describing the bending regions as having a ‘high flexural elasticity’, such that the bending regions have the lower modulus of elasticity in comparison to the other regions). Rentsch teaches that providing a bending region of a living hinge with a material having a lower modulus of elasticity that adjacent regions is advantageous in order to ensure that the hinge executes a selected pivoting movement, and that unintended bending is avoided (see col. 17, lines 7-10).
Since Jacobson teaches that the connection shoulder is a bending region of a living hinge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the connection shoulder of Jacobson, as modified, with a lower modulus of elasticity than the at least one flap and the protrusion in view of the teachings of Rentsch. This modification is advantageous to ensure that bending occurs primarily at the connection shoulder of Jacobson, as modified, without significant bending occurring in the flat and protrusion (i.e., the flap and protrusion being only slightly elastically stressed consistent with Rentsch’s teachings at col. 17, lines 4-7). This modification further allows bending to occur while also allowing the at least one flap and the protrusion to be sufficiently stiff to exert a removal force on the razor cartridge. If the flap and/or protrusion were constructed from too low a modulus of elasticity, these structures would not have the necessary rigidity to impart a removal force to the cartridge, such that these structures would be unable to perform their functions.
Readwin is likewise pertinent to the problem of reducing the complexity of a mechanism requiring multiple components (which is a problem faced by the present inventor – see page 1 at lines 19-23), in view of Readwin teaching a living hinge that allows for constructing a hinge from one integral component. Readwin teaches constructing a component from different materials with different modulii of elasticity (the materials forming elements 30 and 32; see col. 3, lines 8-17). Readwin teaches that the lower modulus of elasticity material, which forms the living hinge (i.e., the material forming element 30), can be a thermoplastic elastomer (see col. 3, lines 31-43). Readwin further teaches that the other material can be either of a thermoplastic elastomer and a thermoplastic polymer (see col. 3, lines 48-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art select a thermoplastic elastomer for the connection shoulder, to select a thermoplastic elastomer for the at least one flap, and to select a thermoplastic polymer for the protrusion in view of the teachings of Readwin. This modification is obvious because, consistent with the teachings of both Rentsch and Readwin, a living hinge is known to be provided with a material having a lower modulus of elasticity compared to adjacent materials, and because Readwin teaches that adjacent materials having a higher modulus of elasticity can be either of a thermoplastic elastomer and a thermoplastic polymer. Thus, this modification is merely the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to select a higher modulus of elasticity of material for the protrusion of Jacobson, as modified, in view of the protrusion having to perform the function of exerting a removal force to the cartridge. Since the various components of the razor connector of Jacobson, as modified, perform different functions, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to select a material on the basis of its modulus of elasticity to perform those respective functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues beginning at page 10 of the Remarks that Jacobson fails to disclose that “whereupon actuation of the at least one flap, a distal section of the least one flap is configured to move towards a distal end of a razor connector.” The Applicant asserts, without an further explanation or justification, that, “Indeed, in Jacobson, no distal end of the pusher member moves towards a distal end of a razor connector”. This argument is not persuasive. A comparison of Figs. 4 and 5 of Jacobson is evidence that a distal section of the at least one flap (the distal section being the section immediately proximal of the protrusion) moves toward the distal end of the razor connector when the flap is actuated. Indeed, this movement is necessary for the protrusion to be able to disconnect the cartridge – since the protrusion is fixed to the distal section of the flap, movement of the protrusion that produces removal of the cartridge necessarily includes movement of the distal section. As such, the Applicant’s arguments against Jacobson are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights