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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IV (claims 9-12) in the reply filed on 4-15-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not distinctness. Applicant argues that features of each group are coordinated features of the same razor. This is not found persuasive because each of the groups listed in the restriction requirement of 2-24-2026 are distinct. The groups are distinct if there is evidence of separate patentability, such as two way distinctness. For example, the scope of the structure of the claims in Group I cannot be used to reject the scope of the structure of the Claims in Group II.
Applicant argues that a single razor can satisfy both Group II and Group IV. The Examiner disagrees. A razor with a head joint does not read on a fitting groove formed on one side into which a fitting piece is inserted cannot be used. These are distinct features. Put another way, the scope of Group IV is not capable of rejecting the scope of Group II under non-statutory double patenting. A head joint does not read on a fitting groove formed on one side into which a fitting piece is inserted and cannot be used. As such, the claim sets are distinct, and the subject matter of the claims claim distinct scope.
The inventions do not overlap in scope. Each invention is directed to a unique, distinct group of features. Further, the inventions are not connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect, since the each of the inventions has a feature not required by the other, and also each has a unique search and examination burden. See MPEP 806.05.
Due to the groups divergent scope, each of the groups would require a distinct and divergent search, including significant text searching. Applicant argues that a significant search burden is not present. The Examiner disagrees. For example a search of (razor and joint) turns up 33,063 references. A search of razor and (curv$4) turns up 75,651 references. These results are illustrative of a unique search and examination burden for each group.
Nevertheless, the examiner has accepted the burden of examining claims 2, 4, and 14-15 in addition to the claims of Group IV. As such, Claims 1-2, 4, and 9-15 are examined in this action. Claims 3 and 5-8 are withdrawn.
Claim 3, and 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 5-8 should be listed as “withdrawn.” 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 1-15 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.
In re Claim 1, “the razor blade” lacks antecedent basis. The claim was interpreted as “a razor blade.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 4, “a fitting piece is inserted,” is indefinite. Claim 1 introduces a fitting piece. Is claim 4 referring to the previously introduced fitting piece or introducing a second fitting piece? This is unclear. The claims were interpreted as requiring a single fitting piece. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 11, “the head connection piece” is indefinite. This element lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Is applicant referring to the head connection part? This is unclear. The claims were interpreted as referring to the head connection part. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 11, “it” is indefinite. it is unclear what “it” is referring to. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 12, “it” is indefinite. it is unclear what “it” is referring to. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “the above razor blade” is indefinite. It is unclear if this clause is referring to the previously introduced razor blade or referring to some other blade. The claim was interpreted as “the razor blade.”
In re Claim 12, “is fitted is formed in a form in which it is allowed to be detachably connected from the head joint part,” is indefinite. It is unclear what “is fitted in formed in a form means.” Further, applicant uses the word “allowed.” It is unclear if what follows is required or is simply permitted. The claim was interpreted as “the razor blade is detachably connected to the head joint part.”
In re Claim 13, “wherein the razor blade head is formed in a concave shape,” is indefinite. it is unclear if this is a method step. The claim was interpreted as “wherein the razor blade head has a concave shape facing a face to increase adhesion to the face. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,010,645 to Furukawa.
In re Claim 1, Furukawa teaches a foldable cartridge razor (see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a handle (see Figs. 1-3, #22/20) having a fitting piece (see Figs. 1-3, structure that connects to neck #24) formed therein;
a neck part (see Figs. 1-3, #24) rotatably connected to the fitting piece of the handle (see Figs. 1-3, structure of #24 that connects to #20); and
a razor blade head which is rotatably connected to the neck part (see Figs. 1-3, #32/34 which is connected to neck #24 by pin #38) and folded so that the razor blade comes into close contact with an inside of the handle (see Fig. 3, showing the razor blade in “close contact” with the inside of the handle).
In re Claim 2, Furukawa teaches wherein a concave part (see Fig. 3, groove #26 in handle #20) in which a razor blade head including a razor blade is seated is formed in the handle (see Fig. 3).
In re Claim 9, Furukawa teaches wherein a connection part (see Figs. 1-3, pin #38 ) to which the razor blade is connected (razor blade #34 is connected to pin #38 by way of holder #32) is formed in the razor blade head (a portion of pin #38 is located in holder #32) and a head joint part (portion of #24 that receives pin #38 in Figs. 1-3) is formed so that the neck part is connected to the connection part (see Figs. 1-3, #24 is connected to #32 by way of pin #38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,010,645 to Furukawa in view of US 7093363 B1 to Kuo.
In re Claim 4, Furukawa teaches wherein the neck part has a fitting groove (see Figs. 1-3, groove in which pin #30 is located) formed on one side into which a fitting piece (see Figs 1-3, pin #30) is inserted and a head connection piece (see Figs. 1-3, #32/34) formed on the other side.
Furukawa does not show a razor blade head is detachably connected. However, Kuo teaches that it is known in the art of razor blades to provide a razor blade cartridge with a connection part on a pivoting razor handle that is formed in a form in which it is allowed to be detachably connected from the head joint part (see Fig. 3-4, see also Col. 3, ll. 38-50; see also Furukawa, Col. 3, ll. 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a connection part between the razor and the holder of Furukawa that allows the user to replace the blade. Doing so allows the user to replace only the blade as opposed to throwing away the razor when the blade dulls. In other words, replacing the blade while keeping the handle allows the user to reuse the handle.
In re Claim 12, Furukawa is silent as to wherein the connection part into which the above razor blade is fitted is formed in a form in which it is allowed to be detachably connected from the head joint part. However, Kuo teaches that it is known in the art of razor blades to provide a razor blade cartridge with a connection part on a pivoting razor handle that is formed in a form in which it is allowed to be detachably connected from the head joint part (see Fig. 3-4, see also Col. 3, ll. 38-50; see also Furukawa, Col. 3, ll. 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a connection part between the razor and the holder of Furukawa that allows the user to replace the blade. Doing so allows the user to replace only the blade as opposed to throwing away the razor when the blade dulls. In other words, replacing the blade while keeping the handle allows the user to reuse the handle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,010,645 to Furukawa in view of US 10,500,744 to Dryfhout.
In re Claim 10, Furukawa is silent as to wherein the head joint part is formed to be inclined at an angle of 50 to 70 degrees with respect to a longitudinal direction of the connection part.
However, Dryfhout teaches that it is known to provide a head joint part (see Dryfhout, Fig. 21, #295 form to be inclined with respect to a longitudinal direction of the connection part (see Dryfhout, Fig. 21, #215; see also Col. 19, ll. 20-60; see also Col. 53, ll. 10-32). Dryfhout teaches angle y as 75 degrees or less (see Dryfhout, Col. 19, ll. 20-60; see also Fig. 2-/25, “Y”).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to position the connection structure at any angle, including 50-70 degrees, in in order to place the blade edges at an angle of less than 75 degrees, as taught by Dryfhout), doing so provides a preferred blade angle for minimizing accidental cutting, nicking or razor burn (see Dryfhout, Col. 2, ll. 42-46).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,010,645 to Furukawa in view of US 5,070,614 to Hardin.
In re Claim 11, Furukawa teaches wherein a head joint piece (see Figs. 1-3, portions of the holder #32 that receive pin #38) which is fitted into the head connection piece of the neck part is formed in the head joint part (portion of pin #38 is located in the neck #24). a locking projection is formed on an upper part of the head joint piece so that it does not fall out when fitted into the head connection piece (see Figs. 1-3, bump #40 which secure the razor such that it does not fall out).
Furukawa is silent as to and a protrusion piece is formed on the side of the head joint piece.
However, Harden teaches that it is known in the razor cartridge art to provide a protrusion piece (see Harden, Figs. 1-5, #18/18’) on the side of the head joint piece (see Harden Figs. 1-5, #16). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the connection of the razor blade and the razor blade holder with the cartridge and receptacle structure of Harden. Doing so would allow the user to rotate the blade, to adjust the razor to a particular body part or location.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,010,645 to Furukawa in view of US 5,199,173 to Hegemann.
In re Claim 13, Furukawa is silent as to wherein the razor blade head is formed in a concave shape on a surface facing a face to increase adhesion to the face.
However, Hegemann teaches that it is known in the art of razor blades to provide a razor blade head formed such that the blade is in a concave shape on a surface facing a face to increase adhesion to the face (see Hegemann, Fig. 1a/2b). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date to provide a razor head where the blade is oriented in a concave shape facing the user’s face. Doing so provides a concave blade which is used to shave convex body surfaces while maintaining the optimal blade geometry for smooth and effective shaving (see Hegemann, abstract, and Col. 2, ll. 40-50).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,010,645 to Furukawa in view of KR100881752.
In re Claim 14, Furukawa, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the handle includes a clip. However, KR100881752 teaches that it is known to add a clip (see KR 100881752, Figs. 1-2, #80; see also translation which states: “a hook pin 80. The hook pin 80 is used to fix the vibrating razor combined vibration toothbrush 100 to a garment or the like.”) to a razor assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a clip to the razor of Furukawa. Doing so allows the user to fix the razor to a garment or the like, thereby preventing the inadvertent loss of the razor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,010,645 to Furukawa in view of KR100881752, and further in view of US 2003/0106917 to Shetler.
In re Claim 15, modified Furukawa, in re Claim 14, does not teach wherein the clip includes support clip protrusions. Shetler teaches that it is known in the art of attachment clips to add protrusions to the attachment clip (see Shetler, Fig. 4, #48; see also Para. 0040).
In the same field of invention, clips for attaching objects to a person, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add friction surfaces, such as ridges, grooves, to the clip of modified Furukawa. Doing so inhibits slipping of the user's grip operation (see Shelter, Para. 0040).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights