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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 16-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 is directed to a razor cartridge comprising a lubricant reservoir having one or more pores configured to switch between a closed conformation and an opened conformation based on an external stimulus. The Examiner finds that the claimed subject matter encompasses a natural phenomenon, namely the inherent physical response of materials to external conditions such as temperature and pressure, which cause openings or pores in materials to open and close.
The claim broadly recites the result of this natural behavior without positively reciting specific structural features, material compositions, or mechanisms that give rise to the switching between the closed and opened conformations. As claimed, the switching behavior occurs due to the natural properties of materials when subjected to external stimuli, rather than due to a particular human-made structure.
The additional elements of a razor cartridge and lubricant reservoir are conventional components that merely provide a context in which the natural phenomenon occurs and do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed subject matter. As such, the claim seeks to preempt the use of the natural phenomenon itself in a generic razor cartridge environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claim 1-3 and 16-32 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.
Regarding claim 1, “one or more pore(s) are configured” is unclear because pores are passive openings and cannot be “configured” to perform an action. Rather, it is the structure defining the pores that is configured to expend or contract in response to temperature and/or external pressure, thereby altering the pore size.
Regarding claim 1, “a closed configuration” and “an opened configuration” is confusing ate unclear because the claim does not define what constitutes a closed configuration verses an opened configuration. Specially, the claim does not specify the degree to which the pores must be closed to be considered in the “closed configuration,” nor the degree to which the pores must be open to be considered in the ”opened configuration.”
Regarding claim 1, “an external stimulus” is indefinite. The claim does not provide sufficient guidance as to what constitute an “external stimulus.” It is not clear what could be considered as an external stimulus and what is not considered to be an external stimulus.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the one or more pore(s) are in the closed conformation below a threshold temperature and in the opened conformation above a threshold temperature” is confusing. First, claim 1 does not recite any temperature-related limitation; therefore, it is unclear what “a threshold temperature” refers to. Second, it is not clear whether “a threshold temperature” refers to the same threshold temperature previously introduced in the claim or a different threshold temperature.
Regarding claim 16, “the threshold temperature” is unclear because claim 3 appears to introduce more than one threshold temperature. Therefore, it is ambiguous threshold temperature claim 16 is referring to.
Regarding claim 17, “the one or more pore(s) are in the closed conformation below a threshold pressure and in the opened conformation above a threshold pressure” is confusing. First, claim 1 does not recite any pressure-related limitation; therefore, it is unclear what “a threshold pressure” refers to. Second, it is not clear whether “a threshold pressure” refers to the same threshold pressure previously introduced in the claim or a different threshold pressure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 18, 20-21, 23, 29, and 31-32, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Galanis et al. (2019/0255720 A1), hereinafter Galanis. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Galanis teaches a razor cartridge 10 comprising a lubricant reservoir (is defined by the combination of the polymer film that covers the masking foil 26 and the protrusions 65 which contains lubricant; Fig. 41 and paragraph [0137]) having one or more pore(s) (defined by the pores of the polymer film (paragraph [0137)]), wherein the one or more pore(s) (66 are configured to switch between a closed conformation (in a normal state where masking foil 26 is not heated and the pores of the polymer film is not extended) and an opened conformation (when the masking foil 26 is heated and the pores is extended) based on an external stimulus (defined as at least heat).
It should be noted that Galanis teaches a lubricant reservoir (defined by extruded protrusions 65 that contain lubricant and a polymer film covering the protrusions; Fig. 40; para. [0137]). The polymer film includes one or more pores (para. [0137]) whose porosity is controlled by heat generated by electrical current passing through masking foil 26. In an unheated state, the pores of the polymer film are unextended and functionally block or inhibit passage of lubricant, corresponding to a closed conformation as defined in the specification (para. [0072]). When heated, the pores expand, allowing passage of lubricant and increasing the release rate, corresponding to an opened conformation. Accordingly, Galanis teaches one or more pores configured to switch between closed and opened conformations based on an external stimulus, namely heat.
Regarding claim 2, Galanis teaches everything noted above including that the external stimulus is a change in temperature and/or pressure.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Galanis teaches everything noted above including that the one or more pore(s) are in the closed conformation below a threshold temperature and in the opened conformation above a threshold temperature. It should be noted that Galanis teaches pores of a polymer film that are in a closed conformation in an unheated state and in an opened conformation in a heated state, wherein heating is caused by electrical current through masking foil 26 and controls pore expansion and lubricant release (Fig. 40; para. [0137]). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the unheated state corresponds to a closed conformation and the heated state corresponds to an opened conformation, consistent with applicant’s definition. The unheated and heated states inherently define a threshold temperature at which the conformation changes. A reference need not explicitly recite the word “threshold” if the functional transition is disclosed
Regarding claim 18, Galanis teaches everything noted above including that the lubricant reservoir comprises a first polymeric material (defined as the polymeric film which inherently contains polymeric material), wherein the first polymeric material comprises the one or more pore(s).
Regarding claim 20, Galanis teaches everything noted above including that
the lubricant reservoir comprises a shell (defined by the protrusions 65 and the polymeric film cover ), wherein the shell comprises the first polymeric material
(defined by the polymeric film of the shell).
Regarding claim 21, Galanis teaches everything noted above including that
the the first polymeric material is elastic. As the polymeric film is at least partially elastic since it requires to expand and contract.
Regarding claim 23, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that
the first polymeric material comprises a first polymer (as being a polymer film) and/or wherein the first polymeric material comprises a second polymer.
Regarding claim 29, Gananis teaches everything noted above including that the lubricant reservoir (as the protrusions 65 and the polymer film) comprises a plurality of wall segments, wherein at least one first wall segment of the plurality of wall segments comprises a first polymeric material (as the material of the wall defined by the polymer film), and wherein at least one second wall segment (as the wall of the protrusions 65) of the plurality of wall segments comprises a stiff material.
Regarding claim 31, Gananis teaches everything noted above including a process for manufacturing the razor cartridge 10 according to claim 1, wherein the lubricant reservoir is press-fitted into a razor cartridge blank or wherein the lubricant reservoir is manufactured by manufacturing a razor cartridge blank comprising a recess (defined by the recesses in the protrusions 65) and sealing the recess with the first polymeric material (as the polymer film).
Regarding claim 32, Gananis teaches everything noted above including a shaving razor assembly comprising: a razor handle 14; and a razor cartridge 10 according to claim 1, wherein the razor cartridge is either releasably attached to the razor handle via a pivotable or non-pivotable connection (paragraph [0048]), integrally formed with the razor handle via a non-pivotable connection, or integrally formed with the razor handle via a pivotable connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 16-17, 19, 22, 24-28, and 30, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gananis. Regarding claim 16, Gananis teaches everything noted above including temperature-controlled pore expansion but does not expressly disclose a numerical temperature range. Gananis does not explicitly teach that the threshold temperature is between about 20 °C to about 40 °C. However, selecting a threshold temperature between about 20 °C and 40 °C corresponds to typical ambient-to-skin temperatures encountered during shaving. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the temperature within the range specified above, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that the one or more pore(s) are in the closed conformation below a threshold pressure and in the opened conformation above a threshold pressure. Galanis teaches a polymer film with pores whose conformation changes to regulate lubricant release. It is well known in the art that elastomeric and polymeric membranes with pores respond to both thermal and mechanical stimuli (e.g., pressure) by changing pore dimensions. Applying pressure as an alternative or additional stimulus to cause pore expansion would have been an obvious design choice to achieve the same predictable result of controlling fluid release. Therefore, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of porous polymer membranes commonly exhibit pressure-responsive deformation is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that the first polymeric material comprises poly-N-isopropylacrylamide, polyacrylamide and/or copolymers thereof. Galanis teaches a polymer film whose porosity changes with temperature. PNIPAM and polyacrylamide are well-known thermoresponsive and hydrogel polymers used to achieve temperature-dependent pore expansion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known thermoresponsive polymer to achieve the disclosed function of temperature-controlled porosity, 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 22, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that
first polymeric material has a Shore 00 hardness between about 0 to about 70, measured according to ASTM D2240-15(2021). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a material and its hardness as specified in the claim, 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 claims 24-25, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that the first polymer is a thermoresponsive polymer or the first polymer is poly-N-isopropylacrylamide. However, as stated above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the polymer as specified above, 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 26, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that the second polymer is polyacrylamide. However, using multiple polymers or layered polymer structures to tune mechanical and release properties is a well-known technique in polymer membrane design. In addition, Examiner takes an Official Notice that the use of a multi layered polymer with one layer formed from polyacrylamide is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 27, Gananis, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including that the first polymer forms a first polymer layer and the second polymer forms a second polymer layer.
Regarding claim 28, Gananis teaches everything noted above including that a diameter of the one or more pore(s) at a lubricant reservoir's outer surface inherently increases between about 5 % to about 50 % when the first polymeric material's temperature increases from 20 °C to a temperature of 50 °C and/or wherein the diameter of the one or more pore(s) at a lubricant reservoir's inner surface inherently decreases between about 5 % to about 50 % when the first polymeric material's temperature increases from 20 °C to a temperature of 50 °C.
It could be argued that Gananis does not disclose the specific amount of increase and decrease in the diameter of the pores. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the amount of decrease and increase in the diameter of the pores as set forth above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 30, Gananis teaches everything noted above except that the stiff material comprises acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (ABS), polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified polymer (PETG) and/or mixtures thereof. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the stiff material as specified above, 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Flyash et al. (2011/0167640 A1), Tseng et al. (6,298,558 B1), Guimont et al. (7,155,828 B2), Oldroyd (5,903,979), Miller et al. (5,056,222), Burgio (9,604,374 B2), Nicholas (2016/0199992 A1), Wain (2013/0145623 A1), Louis (2002/0211099 A1), Guay (2009/0178282 A1), Orloff (7,162,800 B2), Pennella (7,103,976 B2), Simms (2002/0023351 A1), Prochaska (6,131287 A), and Etheredge (4,872,263 A) teach a razor cartridge with lubricant reservoir.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 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 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 January 12, 2026