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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A, Figure 1: show a first embodiment of a razor having a cylindrical resilient member 18 and two stop members 20-21 on a base 11.
Species B, Figures 2-3: show a second embodiment of a razor having a cylindrical resilient member 18 and two stop members 23 on a blade frame 12.
Species C, Figure 4: show a 3rd embodiment of a razor having a single section of a cylindrical resilient member 18 on a blade frame 12 and a rectangular base 11.
Species D, Figure 5: show a fourth embodiment of a razor having a two-section of a cylindrical resilient member 18 on a blade frame 12 and a rectangular base 11.
Species E, Figure 6: show a fifth embodiment of a razor having a resilient member 18 having a shape of “H”.
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Currently, it appears that claims 1, 13, 19 are drawn to Species A-E. As dependent claims are written, some of claims are belong to only one of the above Species. Applicant is required to identify the claims readable on the elected species.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above due to the divergent searches involved, and the resultant divergent examination processes.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
A telephone call was made to Mahmoud Razzaghi on 01/15/2025 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement; Applicant's election with traverse of species A (Figure 1), corresponding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-20 are acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all materials and configurations are within a razor. Therefore, there would be NOT serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because as seen in the species in the section 2 above, it is clearly that each species is independent or distinct from each other. Even all species are in the same razor field, but each species has its own designation and configuration.
Therefore, there would be serious burden if search all distinct species together. Most importantly, art applicable to one group or species would likely not be applicable to another group or species, thus leading to divergent examination processes. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL and claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-20 are examined below.
Claims 3, 7, 9, 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the references “10, 12, 14, 11” in figures 1-6 are unclear what they are pointing to (Examiner suggests to move the references closer to the drawing). 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract is slightly worded and line 8 the phrase “in another embodiment…” is confusing whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details and what is actually disclosed. Therefore, the abstract is suggested to amend below:
--A razor cartridge comprises a base and a razor blade frame with a plurality of razor blades. The base has a receiving end for temporary or permanent attachment to a handle. A resilient member has two ends; attaches to a middle location of the blade frameattaches to the cartridge base. When a user holds the handle and places the blade frame on a shaving area, the blade frame is configured to rotate
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, the last line, the language “razor” is blur. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 has the same issue.
Claim 19, line 3 “An” should read –an--.
Claim 19, line 4 “the axis” should read –the longitudinal axis--.
Claim 19, line 8 “the handle axis” should read –the longitudinal axis of the razor handle--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-20 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.
The preamble of claim 1 is “a razor cartridge”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the razor cartridge by itself, without the handle.
However, in the body of claim 1, line 2 is the phrase “…the cartridge to a handle” and also see claim 12 “The razor cartridge …attached to a handle”. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a combination of the cartridge and the handle (another word, it is a razor), which is seemingly not what the preamble suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination, but then it is not clear what structural scope to give the language in the body of the claim (see the last paragraph of claim 1 that is unclear what the blade frame can be rotated with relative to). Would a razor cartridge that includes a base, a frame including a plurality of blades, and a resilient member meet this, even if there was no teaching of rotation through flexure or twisting …a handle? What structure of the cartridge is being claimed? Or what is constitution of a razor cartridge? If the handle is not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would not need to show a handle, it would only need to show the structure of the cartridge, right?
Also, the last paragraph of claim 1 is unclear what’s structure of the razor blade frame cause to rotate or can rotate? Does it rotate while the cartridge pressingly contacts a user’s body, right? Please note that the cartridge is a portable and it can be rotated in many axes around the resilient member, therefore, it is unclear what the last paragraph is actually claimed. Claims 13 and 19 have the same issue.
Claim 1, line 3 the language “its…its” is unclear whether the 1st “its” refers to the upper side or the lower side and the 2nd “its” refers to the left side or the right side.
Claim 1, line 5 “…with cutting edges” is unclear whether the cutting edges belong to the razor blade frame or the razor blades. Claim 13 has the same issue.
Claim 1, line 7 “its length” is unclear whether the “its length” refers to the length of the first end or the second end or the length from the first end to the second end of the resilient member. Claim 13 has the same issue.
Claim 1, line 9 “the back…side of the razor blade frame” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers the back face or an additional back side of the razor blade frame.
The scope of claim 2 is unclear what causes an initial deformation of the resilient member…. How and what causes for the resilient member to provide sufficient force for the blades to cut through the hair…. Please note that this invention is directed to structures of the cartridge (not a method claim), therefore, what structure of the cartridge to perform “an initial deformation”, “sufficient force”…. And how does it perform?
Claim 4, line 1 “projections therefrom” and line 3 “projections therefrom” are unclear whether all projections are the same or different ones or referring the projections in claim 1 or additional projections. And also, it is unclear what and where the “therefrom” is referencing to. Claim 14 has the same issue.
Claim 5, the language “its …” is unclear what “its” refers to. Claim 15 has the same issue.
The language “parallel” of claim 6 in the phrase “the resilient member…a longitudinal axis parallel to the height…” is unclear since the resilient member is rotated, flexure and twisted, or deformation in the three axes, therefore, the longitudinal axis can be changed since it is resilient. Thus, the longitudinal axis cannot be always parallel to the height of the frame.
Claim 13, line 2 “a longitude as handle” is unclear what it is actually claimed. Is a longitude handle, right?
The preamble of claim 19 is “a razor handle”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the razor handle by itself, without the cartridge or the razor blade frame.
However, in the body of claim 19, the phrase “…an elongated handle…attached to each other via a resilient member”; “the razor blade frame…a plurality of razor blades”…”the razor blade frame is attached …the handle…”. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a combination of the cartridge and the handle (another word, it is a razor), which is seemingly not what the preamble suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination, but then it is not clear what structural scope to give the language in the body of the claim (there are many structures of the cartridge claimed; see the last paragraph of claim 19; what should it be interpreted if structures of the cartridge are no positively claimed?). Would a razor handle that includes upper and lower parts meet this, even if there was no teaching of a cartridge, a resilient member or parts not belong to the handle? What structure of the handle is being claimed? If the cartridge, frame, and resilient member are not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would not need to show them, it would only need to show the structure of the handle, right?
Claim 19, line 3 “an elongated handle” is unclear since the preamble is a razor handle. Are the razor handle and the elongated handle the same?
The scope of claim 20 is unclear (see the discussion in claim 19 above) because the invention is directed to a razor handle, not a combination of handle, frame, resilient, and cartridge.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as rejections below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wattam et al (US 2020/0114535) hereinafter Wattam in view of Murgida et al (US 2012/0073150) hereinafter Murgida.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Wattam shows a razor (Figure 1) for shaving face or body hair, the razor comprising:
a handle (102, Figure 1)
a base (107, Figure 1) with a receiving end for attachment of the cartridge to the handle (see one side of the body 107 on an end of the handle 102),
a razor blade frame (103, 113, 106, and a cartridge housing, Figure 1) having upper and lower sides (Figure 1 below) defining a length of the razor cartridge (a longitudinal length), left and right sides (lateral sides) defining a height of the razor cartridge (a width of the cartridge), and a front face and a back face (a front face or a top side where it contacts a face when it is used to shave and a back side is an opposite the top side),
a plurality of razor blades (Para. 46 “elongated blades”) installed inside the razor blade frame with cutting edges along the frame length and aligned with the front face (this is an inherently limitation),
a resilient member (see a movement member 116, Figure 2) with a first end and a second end defining a length,
the first end of the resilient member is attached fixedly, equidistant from the left and right sides of the razor blade frame (Figure 11 shows the movement member is positioned at a middle of the cartridge) to
the second end of the resilient member is fixedly attached to the cartridge base (see Figure 1)
the razor blade frame can be rotated through flexure or twisting of the resilient member around axes along the length, height, or perpendicular to the front face of the razor blade frame (see Para. 40 “handle body…is formed of resilient material” and see Para. 42 “the handle body (102) and movement member (116) may be formed same material” that means the movement member can be formed a resilient material, which allows “the razor blade frame can be rotated through flexure or twisting of the resilient member around axes along the length, height, or perpendicular to the front face of the razor blade frame” while an user is shaving).
However, Wattam fails to show an opening with the front face and the back face of the cartridge.
Murgida shows a razor cartridge (30, figure 1) having an opening through from a front face to a back face (for blades 32 as seen in Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the razor cartridge of Wattam to have an opening through from a front face to a back face, as taught by Murgida, in order to be easily cleaned, rinsed, removed debris or hair from the cartridge.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified razor of Wattam shows that after an initial deformation of the resilient member and alignment of the razor blade frame with the area to be shaved, the resilient member provides sufficient force for the blades to cut through the hair and shave the area (see the issue discussed above. It is unclear how structures of the cartridge to perform it since the invention is a portable and manual razor. Therefore, while the user is shaving, the user applies a pressing force to the razor that causes deformation of the resilient member and alignment of the razor blade frame with the area to be shaved and the resilient member provides a biasing force or a counter force to the face or area to be shaved that meets this scope).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified razor of Wattam shows that The amount of movement of central core (120) is limited by the adjacent projections coming into contact with one another preventing further movement of the central core” and see Para. 34 “slot separators (150) are desirable when designing the movement member to have pre-determined movements amounts or limitations in a certain direction. The number, orientation, shape and dimension of the slot separators control the amount of movement for the movement member in any particular direction”).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the razor blade frame additionally has a member (106, Figure 1 of Wattam) connecting a middle of the upper and lower sides, and the first end of the resilient member is attached to
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the resilient member has a longitudinal axis parallel to the height of the razor blade frame (see the issues as discussed above; it is unclear when the resilient member longitudinal axis parallel to the height or width of the razor blade frame; therefore, during a bending test as discussed in Para. 52 and seen in Figure 11 of Wattam, the resilient member longitudinal axis parallel to the height or width of the razor blade frame).
Regarding claim 8, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the resilient member has a cylindrical geometry (see the farther right in Figure 9 of Wattam; the core 120 is a circular shape or a cylindrical geometry).
Regarding claim 10, the modified razor of Wattam shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the resilient member is made of rubber.
The examiner takes official notice that it is known to have the resilient member to be made of rubber. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the resilient material being rubber, in order to allow a manufacturer to have an alternative material to provide an excellent elasticity for razors.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the resilient member being made of rubber, since 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.
Regarding claim 12, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the cartridge is attached to a handle (the handle, see discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified razor of Wattam shows a razor for shaving face or body hair (see the discussion in claim 1 above), the razor comprising:
a longitude handle (102, Figure 1 of Wattam) having a top end (where the body 107 attached thereon),
“a razor blade frame having upper and lower length sides, left and right height sides” (as stated in claim 1 above), and an opening with a front face and a back face (see the modification above),
“a plurality of razor blades installed inside the razor blade frame with cutting edges along the frame length and aligned with the front face” (see the discussion in claim 1 above),
“a resilient member with a first end and a second end defining a length” (see discussion in claim 1 above), the first end of the resilient member is attached fixedly, equidistant from the left and right sides of the razor blade frame to
the razor blade frame can be rotated through flexing or twisting of the resilient member around axes along the length, height, or perpendicular to the front face of the razor blade frame (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified razor of Wattam shows projections “therefrom” (122, Figures 6-7) limit the rotation of the razor blade frame to a desired angle (a contact angle of a body 122 and a body 150) through contact with
Regarding claim 16, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the resilient member material is metal (the resilient member material and the handle are formed the same material as discussed in Para. 42 of Wattam and Para. 41 of Wattam “preferably the entire handle body (102) is formed of resilient material. …metals, or alloys such as zinc, aluminum, steel, titanium, stainless steel, brass; carbon fibre, and/or mixtures thereof” which meets the limitation of “metal”).
Regarding claim 17, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the resilient member material is rubber (as stated in claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified razor of Wattam shows a razor handle (102, Figure 1 of Wattam) for temporary or permanent attachment to a razor blade frame for shaving face or body hair (Para. 46 “The razor cartridge (110) may be pivotally connected to the cartridge connecting structure (106) of the handle”), wherein the handle razor is an elongated handle having a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1), an upper part (103, 113, Figure 1 of Wattam), and a lower part along the longitudinal axis (102, Figure 1 of Wattam),
wherein the upper and lower parts are attached to each other via a resilient member (116) along the longitudinal axis, the razor blade frame has a front face with an opening and a plurality of razor blades inside the opening with their edges aligned with the front face (see the modification in claim 1 for the “opening” and see the preamble of 112 issue above),
the razor blade frame is attached to the upper part of the handle with the blade edges perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the razor handle (see Figure 11 of Wattam), the razor blade frame can be rotated through flexure or twisting of the resilient member around axes along the handle axis, the blade edges, or perpendicular to the razor blade frame face (please note that this is an intended use limitation since the cartridge is not positively claimed. See the preamble “a razor handle” and see claim 1 for the razor performance).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the modified razor of Wattam shows that the degree of rotation of the razor blade frame is limited by .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 102021005997; US 5560106; US 4955136 show resilient members for flexure cartridges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 1/15/2026