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 9 July 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 19 May 2026, except for an objection to the drawings repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Article 7, which requires drawings when necessary for the understanding of the present invention, as a result of the features recited in claim 1. Drawings illustrating the features of claim 1 are necessary for the understanding of the present invention, yet no razor connector as described in claim 1 is illustrated in the present drawings. To elaborate, claim 1 requires at least one flap that comprises a proximal section, a distal section, a first protrusion at a first side of the distal section, and a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section opposite to the first side. The drawings do not illustrate such an “at least one flap”. For example, the drawings do not illustrate one flap that includes two protrusions, as encompassed by claim 1. The structure of one flap that includes two protrusions on opposite sides, where both of the two protrusions are configured to disconnect the cartridge from the connector is unclear. Where on the one flap are the two protrusions? How does the one flap move such that both protrusions disconnect the razor cartridge from the razor connector? A drawing is necessary to understand how one flap is provided with two protrusions in the manner encompassed by claim 1. As another example, the drawings do not illustrate at least one flap that comprises a distal section, where both the first and second protrusions are at opposite sides of the same distal section as required by claim 1. That is, while the drawings illustrate a first flap having a first distal section and a second flap having a second distal section, where a first protrusion is on the first distal section and a second protrusion is on the second distal section, the drawings do not illustrate both protrusions being at opposite sides of the same distal section. Moreover, the structure of at least one flap where both protrusions are at the same distal section is unclear. For example, it is unclear how such a distal section would move such that both protrusions are configured to disconnect the razor cartridge from the razor connector. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests amending claim 1 to require a first flap and a second flap (such that the connector must include more than one flap), where the first protrusion is at a first distal section of the first flap and where the second protrusion is at a second distal section of the second flap. This amendment would cause claim 1 to correspond to the razor connector as illustrating in the present drawings, and would avoid problems associated with there being only one flap, and would further avoid problems associated with both protrusions being at the same distal section.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Article 7, which requires drawings when necessary for the understanding of the present invention, as a result of the features recited in claims 31 and 32. Claims 31 and 32 require the use of a different elastomer in the connection shoulder vs. in the at least one flap and the first 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, but such an illustration is required for an understanding of the invention. The extent of the different elastomer in the connection shoulder compared to other components is unclear. As such, it is unclear how the use of a different elastomer in the shoulder compared to the at least one flap and the first protrusion is provided. 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. The geometries of the sections with different elastomers are unclear, such that the improvement in the functionality of the razor connector through the use of different elastomers cannot be understood. Or, is it even the case that the functionality of the razor connector is improved in some way via the use of different elastomers? Do the razor connectors of claims 31 and 32 merely provide a same functionality as if a single elastomer were used throughout the razor connector? If claims 31 and 32 are in fact inventive, and not merely the selection of known materials for known purposes, a drawing illustrating the use of the different elastomers would allow for understanding of the inventive contribution.
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.
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 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.
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) 1-5, 10-11, 16-18, 22-24, 26-27, and 29-33 is/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 recites, “at least one flap” that comprises “a first protrusion at a first side of the distal section, and a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section opposite the first side”. This recitation encompasses one flap having both the first and second protrusions, where the two protrusions are at a first side of a distal section of the one flap and a second side of the distal section of the one flap, respectively, where the second side is opposite the first side. The present specification as originally filed does not describe one flap having both the first and second protrusions in the manner required by claim 1. First, the feature of one flap having two protrusions at the first and second sides of the distal section is newly added to the claims. Second, the feature of one flap having two protrusions at the first and second sides of the distal section was not described in the present specification as originally filed. For example, the present specification describes, “In embodiments, the at least one protrusion 20 may be arranged at the distal end of the at least one flap 16.” (See page 4, lines 1-2 of the clean substitute specification filed 31 May 2024.) This disclosure lacks sufficient specificity regarding where two protrusions are located on one flap – e.g., there is no disclosure in this passage of the first and second protrusions being on opposite first and second sides of the distal section of one flap – such that this disclosure does not describe each feature now required by claim 1 when one flap includes two protrusions. As another example, the present specification describes, “In embodiments, the at least one protrusion 20 may be arranged at the distal section 42 of the at least one flap 16.” (See page 10, lines 5-6 of the clean substitute specification filed 31 May 2024.) This passage also does not disclose the first and second protrusions being on opposite first and second sides of the distal section of one flap. Third, the present drawings fail to illustrate one flap with two protrusions at the first and second sides of the distal section, such that the drawings cannot be relied upon for support of the features of claim 1 when there is only one flap. As such, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement at least because the claim encompasses there being one flap with two protrusions located in a manner not described in the present application as originally filed. Thus, claim 1 fails to comply with 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 1 recites, “at least one flap” that comprises “a first protrusion at a first side of the distal section, and a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section opposite the first side”. This recitation requires, even when more than one flap is present, that the first and second protrusions are at respective sides of “the distal section” of the at least one flap. That is, claim 1 requires that both protrusions are at respective sides of the same distal section1. The present specification as originally filed does not describe one distal section having both the first and second protrusions in the manner required by claim 1. First, the feature of one distal section having two protrusions is newly added to the claims. Second, the feature of one distal section having two protrusions was not described in the present specification as originally filed. For example, the present specification describes, “In embodiments, the flap 16 may comprise a proximal 40 and a distal section 42” (see page 8, line 22 of the clean substitute specification filed 31 May 2024) and “When the at least one flap 16 is actuated, the distal section(s) may move in distal direction and push the razor cartridge toward the distal end” (see page 9, lines 17-18 of the clean substitute specification filed 31 May 2024). These passages make clear that the Applicant considers each flap 16 as illustrated in the present drawings to have a respective distal section 42, such that there are two distal sections 42 when there are two flaps 16. Moreover, when there are two flaps 16 as illustrated in the present drawings, each distal section has only one protrusion 20, rather than a single distal section having both protrusions as recited in claim 1. In the present drawings, the distal section 42 that includes one of the protrusions 20 is distinct from another distal section 42 that includes another one of the protrusions 20. The present specification never contemplates a single distal section that includes two protrusions. Instead, the present specification, when two flaps are provided, contemplates a first distal section having a first protrusion and a second distal section having a second protrusion. However, claim 1 requires that one distal section has both protrusions. Finally, the drawings fail to illustrate one distal section having first and second protrusions as required by claim 1. Instead, the drawings illustrate a first distal section of a first flap and a second distal section of a second flap, where the first distal section has a first protrusion and the second distal section has a second protrusion. As such, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement at least because the claim requires, even when more than one flap is present, that a single distal section comprises both the first and second protrusions. Thus, claim 1 fails to comply with 35 USC 112(a).
Claim(s) 22, 26, and 27 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 22 recites that the tongue comprises “a first section extending parallel to the proximal-distal razor connector axis along the first side of the razor connector and a second section diverging toward the second side of the razor connector”. Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 22 is referring to the same first and second sides as previously introduced in claim 1. Claim 1, though, introduces first and second sides of a distal section of at least one flap. While the at least one flap is part of the razor connector, such that the first and second sides of claim 1 are technically “of the razor connector”, the sides are more accurately referred to as the first and second sides of the distal section. Moreover, interpreting the first and second sides of claim 22 as referring to the first and second sides of a distal section of at least one flap results in the tongue being inaccurately described – as disclosed, the second section of the tongue diverges from the first section in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which the two protrusions 20 are spaced apart. As such, interpreting claim 22 to refer to the same sides as introduced in claim 1 would result in a rejection under 35 USC 112(a), suggesting that claim 22 does not actually intend to refer to the same sides introduced in claim 1. Thus, it is unclear whether claim 22 is referring to the same sides previously introduced in claim 1, or whether claim 22 is introduces two new sides.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 16-18, 22-24, 26-27, and 29-33 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103. However, no determination of allowability can be made for these claims in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112. Claim 1 recites, “at least one flap configured to disconnect the razor cartridge from the razor connector upon actuation, the at least one flap comprising a proximal section, a distal section, a first protrusion at a first side of the distal section, and a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section opposite the first side, ... wherein upon actuation of the at least one flap, the distal section is configured to move towards a distal end of the razor connector and the first protrusion and the second protrusion of the at least one flap are configured to disconnect the razor cartridge from the razor connector”. No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests this feature. Consider US Pat. No. 4,446,619 to Jacobson. While Jacobson does disclose at least one flap (e.g., flap 34) comprising a distal section (an upper section of the flap 34 relative to Fig. 1) and a first protrusion at a first side of the distal section (the protrusion being at the free end 40 as can be seen in Fig. 1), Jacobson does not also disclose a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section opposite to the first side. Moreover, there is no known motivation to provide Jacobson with a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section opposite the first side. The second protrusion would either be at a bottom or a right side of the distal section relative to Fig. 1 of Jacobson. However, in either of these positions, the second protrusion would not be configured to disconnect the razor cartridge from the razor connector by pushing the at least one interlocking part of the razor cartridge out of the at least one interlocking feature. If, hypothetically, Jacobson were modified to include a second flap on an opposing side of the neck portion 4 from the flap 34, where the second flap included a protrusion in the manner of the existing flap 34, then the two protrusions would not be at a first side of the distal section and a second side of the distal section, since the protrusions would be at different distal sections. As such, there is no known motivation to modify Jacobson to arrive at the razor connector of claim 1. No known reference resolves the deficiencies of Jacobson, such that claim 1 avoids the best known art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the drawing objection related to claims 31 and 32, the Applicant asserts that the drawings comply with the requirements of PCT requirements. This argument is not persuasive because the manner in which the different elastomers is employed as described by claims 31 and 32 is unclear. It is unclear whether the different elastomers are employed in a manner that produces a functional improvement, or whether the use of different elastomers is merely an arbitrary design choice. To the extent that the use of different elastomers results in a functional improvement of the inventive razor connector, the manner in which the different elastomers are employed in order to achieve this improvement is unclear. As such, any inventive contribution made by the use of different elastomers is unclear. Moreover, an illustration of the features of claims 31 and 32 would allow the examiner a better understanding of the inventive contribution the use of two materials provides, and thus would inform the examiner’s search strategy (e.g., the examiner might select keywords depending on the apparent functional advantage of the use of different elastomers). Depriving the examiner of an illustration of the razor connector as described in claims 31 and 32 thus hinders the examiner’s search. Further still, an illustration of the invention often informs claim interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation is often supported by reference to Applicant’s own figures. Once again, by failing to illustrate the features of claims 31 and 32, an understanding of the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 31 and 32 is hindered. The drawing objection is thus proper under PCT Rule 7 because an illustration of the features of claims 31 and 32 is necessary for an understanding of the invention.
Further, Applicant’s argument against Jacobson with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 19 May 2026 is persuasive for the reasons explained in the preceding section.
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
1 If the Applicant did not intend that both protrusions were at the same distal section, the Applicant would have introduced more than one distal section. Even when claim 1 reads on an embodiment have two flaps, it remains the case that claim 1 requires the protrusions to be formed on the same distal section since claim 1 recites, “a first protrusion at a first side of the distal section” and “a second protrusion at a second side of the distal section”. If the Applicant intended to permit the protrusions to be on different distal sections, the Applicant would not have introduced only a single “distal section” and then referred to this same “distal section” when describing the positions of each of the first and second protrusions. The Applicant did not recite, e.g., a first flap having a first distal section, a second flap having a second distal section, a first protrusion on the first distal section, and a second protrusion on the second distal section.
Prosecution Insights