DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
All of the I.D.S.’s have been considered. One of the I.D.S.’s has NPL documents that have been lined through. It is unclear how the objection/rejection/allowance of claims with different combination of limitations is relevant to the instant application. Without any reasoning provided by Applicant, these NPL documents have not be considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
On page 7 line 5, item 52. In Figure 3B, item 108 is used for the opening in the bridge member. Is the cavity the same as the opening?
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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Before the Field of Invention on page 1, there needs to be a paragraph explaining the application is a continuation of 18/296,172 now U.S. Patent 12,090,676, which is a continuation of 17/405,678 now U.S. Patent 11,648,698, which is a divisional from 15/975,819 now U.S. Patent 11,117,278.
Figure 2A uses P2 to represent a plane tangent to the cutting edges while Figures 4B and 4C uses P3 to represent what appears to be the same plane. It is unclear why there is 2 different labels for what appears to be the same plane. If they are the same, one label should be used throughout but if there is a difference, an explanation is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Some of the numbers and units used in the claims are written differently. For example, in claim 1, the number is “3.0mm” while claim 6 discloses “3 mm” and “6mm”. Sometimes there is “.0” and sometimes there is no “.0”. Sometimes there is a space between the number and the “mm” and sometimes there is no space. One consistent way needs to be utilized throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
With regards to claim 1, the terms “top” and “above” are unclear in light of no orientation being disclosed by the claim. The cartridge is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where the surface would be a bottom surface and be below P3. Applicant can either establish an orientation in the claim (i.e. when in an upright position) and label Figure 4B as the “upright position” or use terms that are true regardless of orientation (i.e. outer). Claim 5 has the same issues with “top” and “bottom”. Claim 14 has the same issues with “top” and “beneath”. Claim 15 has the same issue with “top”.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “positioned on a plane (P1)” is unclear. It is unclear what structure defines plane P1. As written, any plane that intersects the bridge member can be considered a situation where the bridge member is on the plane. The claim needs to disclose that the “outer surface of the bridge member defines a plane (P1)”.
With regards to claim 2, the phrase “an interblade span” is unclear. Claim 1 discloses the span and claim 2 should be amended to disclose “the interblade span”.
While claim 5 does include a label (P1), this label can only be used as a guide and not a defining disclosure that allows which plane is being reference. Claim 1 discloses plane P3 and, as written, in claim 5, the “plane” limitation can reference back to either of the claim 1 planes which is not supported.
Claim 6 is confusing in that claim 1 discloses the interblade span as being greater than 3mm but claim 6 allows for the lower boundary of the range to be “about 3mm” which can be smaller than 3mm. Claim 6 needs to be amended so that the range does not allow for a value that goes against the claim 1 limitation.
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over EP 3292964 in view of Clarke et al. (2011/0146079).
With regards to claim 1, EP 3292964 discloses the invention including a cartridge (10) having a housing (12) having a primary guard at a front of the housing (14) and a secondary cap at a rear of the housing (16), a first blade (18) having a cutting edge (22), the first blade mounted to the housing between the primary guard and the secondary cap (Fig. 2A), a second blade (20) having a cutting edge (24) extending in a same direction at the cutting edge of the first blade (Fig. 2A), the second blade mounted to the housing between the first blade and the secondary cap (Fig. 2A), the cutting edges define an interblade span (S1) greater than 3mm (abstract lines 7-8), a bridge member (26) having a primary cap surface (28) and a secondary guard surface (30) positioned between the blades (Fig. 2A), and a top surface of the bridge member is positioned on a plane (P1) above a plane (P2) tangent to the cutting edges of the blades (column 4 lines 32-39, Fig. 2A),
With regards to claims 2-16, EP 3292964 discloses a width of the bridge member is greater than 50% of the interblade span between the cutting edges (abstract lines 6-7), a width of the bridge member is about 1.75mm to about 4mm (W2), the bridge member is spaced apart from a blade support member of the first blade (36, column 5 lines 31-33), a pair of clips mounted to the housing (34a, 34b), the plane is positioned between a top surface of the clips and a bottom surface of the clips (Fig. 2A), the interblade span is about 4mm to about 5mm (paragraph [0018]), a span (S2) between the primary guard and the cutting edge of the first blade is about 0.5mm to about 0.8mm (paragraph [0018]), a span (S3) between the secondary guard and the cutting edge of the second blade is about 0.3mm to about 0.7mm (paragraph [0018]), the first and second blades are the only blades (Fig. 2A), the primary guard has a width (W1) of about 0.35mm to about 0.85mm (paragraph [0019]), a width of the bridge member (W2) is about 2mm to about 3mm (paragraph [0019]), the clips are spaced apart from the primary cap surface and the secondary guard surface (Fig. 1), the bridge member defines a cavity beneath the top surface of the bridge member (108), the top surface of the bridge member between the primary cap surface and the secondary guard surface is flat (paragraph [0016] lines 3-5), and the primary cap surface and the secondary guard surface are arcuate (paragraph [0016] lines 1-3).
However, with regards to claim 1, EP 3292964 fails to disclose the top surface of the bridge member/plane P1 is above plane P3 by about 0.01mm to about 0.20mm.
Clarke et al. teach it is known in the art of cartridge having a non-cutting element/bridge (14a, Figs. 4A and 4C) to incorporate the top surface of the bridge member (14a) defining a plane (44b) that is above a plane tangent to the cutting edges (Fig. 4C) by about 0.01mm to about 0.20mm (43, paragraph [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided EP 3292964 with the dimension, as taught by Clarke et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
09 February 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724