Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/805,920

RAZOR CARTRIDGES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 15, 2024
Examiner
CROSBY JR, RICHARD D
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sl Shaveco LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
322 granted / 471 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
520
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 471 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No.12,145,286. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Patent No.12/145,286 requires all of the claimed limitations of claim 1 of the current application. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,286. in view of Clarke (U.S. Patent No. 2011/0146079. Clarke provides a razor cartridge wherein one or more of said other blades has a cutting-edge exposure relative to the contact plane that is negative or neutral (Paragraphs 0075-0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device to incorporate the teachings of Clarke to provide a blade with a cutting edge exposure as negative or neutral relative to a contact plane. Doing so may improve shaving attributes, comfort and safety . Related Prior Art Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used - "892 cited references A-D on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of shaver and with different cutting elements/blades. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00. 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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. /RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/26/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 15, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600050
SHAVING APPARATUS HAVING A RAZOR HANDLE FOR DISPOSABLE RAZOR CARTRIDGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594613
CUTTING PLIER AND CUTTING PLIER HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594614
RIBBON SAW WITH DOUBLE SECURITY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570015
PERSONAL CARE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570020
BLIND CUTTING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+16.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 471 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month