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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2026, 03/19/2026, 01/23/2026, 08/27/2025, 04/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 6 “the proximal end having an upper surface” is unclear and has two issues. First, it is unclear whether the proximal end refers to the proximal end of the handle or the proximal end of the cartridge. Second, with regards to terms of an upper surface (later recites “a lower contacting surface” used in the claim is unclear because this invention is a portable device capable of achieving an infinite number of orientations including orientations where the upper would not be the upper and the lower would not be the lower. It is recommended that terms be utilized that are true regardless of orientation. For an example, see Applicant’s Figure 4, the lower contacting surface or a lower surface is facing to the cutting plane P2 and the upper surface is opposite the lowering surface. Claims 5, 12 has the same issue.
Claim 1, the last paragraph, the language “a distal end or the distal end” is unclear whether it refers to the distal end of the cartridge or the distal end of the handle. Please note that the cartridge includes the distal end, therefore, it is unclear. Claim 5, from line 7 to the end has the same issue.
In Claim 1, the last paragraph, the terms “a generally horizontal resting plane” is indefinite. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure, and can find no discussion of the boundaries of the terms “general” or “generally”. Plane means a flat surface and this invention is a portable shaving device can be oriented any portions including a horizontal position. Therefore, the language “generally” has no means in the term and it is unclear what it is for. If a part or portion of the shaving razor system is not connecting to the horizontal resting plane, the part or portion is NOT for resting. What is the “generally” for? Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 19-20.
Claim 1, the last paragraph, the term “wherein an area defined by the generally horizontal resting plane and the shaving razor system is about 900 mm2 to about 1300 mm2” is unclear and vague. Look at Figure 4, P1 is the generally horizontal resting plane and the razor system (a cartridge 12 and a handle 14). As the term is written, it is unclear whether the area is on the generally horizontal resting plane (by a longitudinal dimension of the cartridge and the lower contacting surface 60) or the area by the concave handle 14 with the generally horizontal resting plane (a recess area between the handle and the generally horizontal resting plane. See claim 4 for its support). Claim 5 has the same issue.
Claim 4, line 1 “a distal end” is unclear whether this distal end refers to the distal end of the handle of claim 1 or additional distal end.
Claim 13 “a nominal thickness” is unclear. As the claim is written, it does not provide a guidance to understand what the “nominal thickness” is. What is the constitution of the “nominal thickness”? Is it the same actual thickness?
Claim 17 “a recess area…a surface area…800-1500mm2 ” is unclear whether the recess area refers to the area of claim 5 or an additional recess area. What are meets and bounds of the surface area of the recess area? Is the surface area that surface is around the handle or a portion of the handle?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 5 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 claim.
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 1-5, 7-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brellis et al (US 2020/0086516) hereinafter Brellis.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Brellis shows a shaving razor system (Figures 1-4) comprising:
a shaving razor cartridge (22) having a shaving surface (see Figure 5 below) with at least one blade (21), the shaving razor cartridge having a proximal end (where the reference 22 is pointing to in Figure 3) and a distal end (where it is attached to the handle);
a shaving razor handle (26) comprising:
a proximal end (where it receives the cartridge) configured to attach to the distal end of the shaving razor cartridge (a free end of the handle 51), the proximal end of the handle having an upper surface (see the surface where the reference 28, Figure 4 is pointing to);
a distal end of the handle having a lower contacting surface (opposite surface of the upper surface at the handle distal end; see Figure 5 below), the shaving razor cartridge and the lower contacting surface of the distal end defining a generally horizontal resting plane with areas of contact to the generally horizontal resting plane includes the shaving razor cartridge and the lower contacting surface of the distal end, wherein an area defined by the generally horizontal resting plane and the shaving razor system is about 900 mm² to about 1300 mm² (it is best understood, the area between the razor system and the horizontal resting plane that meets the claimed area because the end portion of the handle is bent and the cartridge is pivoted; see length L24 is 140mm and a width of a dash-line rectangular is similar to DF length= about 25mm as discussed Para. 41; based on Figure 4 below, the area is about 1/3 of the dash-line rectangular, (140x 25):3 = about 1166 mm2) and wherein the shave plane and the generally horizontal resting plane define an angle of about 8 degrees to about 15 degrees (See Figure 5b below, it is about 10 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
304
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, this area is an estimate area based dimensions on Figure 4 above (as the claim is written, it appears that the area is an estimate since it states “about” 900 mm² to “about” 1300 mm²). If one argues that the area is NOT within the claimed range about 900 mm² to about 1300 mm² (drawings are not in scale).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the area to be within the claimed invention because the cartridge can be pivoted relative to the handle and the handle end portion can be bent as seen in Figure 5b to be a positioned whether the area between claimed range, in order to allow effecting the overall projected length of the razor handle by causing a reduction in the length of the razor handle. This may provide a good handling of the razor handle, no matter the size of a hand of the user, thereby allowing the razor handle to be well suited for any user as discussed in Para. 7.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the area of any reasonable range including the claimed range, 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. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size and shape, structural material of the handle relative to the cutting plane of the shaving cartridge during shaving.
Regarding claim 2, Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle comprises an upper surface that is generally convex and an opposing lower surface that is generally concave (see Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 3, Brellis shows that the upper surface has a proximal end defining a recessed area (where the reference “20” is pointing to, figure 4 above) configured to receive multiple digits of a user, the recessed area of the proximal end having a width of about 20 mm to about 35 mm (compared the width W36 =15-40mm, Para. 35, and the width at the recess area; it is about 30mm). See the discussion the claimed range above.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the area of any reasonable range including the claimed range, 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. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size and shape, structural material of the handle, in order to allow the user comfortable grasp the handle of the shaving system during use.
Regarding claim 4, Brellis shows that the lower surface has the distal end defining a recessed area (there is a recess between the references 51 and 52, Figure 4) configured to receive multiple digits of a user, the recessed area of the distal end having a surface area of about 900 mm² to about 1200 mm² (see Figure 4 above since it is not clear where the surface area is, therefore, the surface portion within the two references meets this limitation, W30=40mm x L30=25mm = 1000mm2) and a length of about 50 mm to about 70 mm (see D52, Figure 4 is about 100mm, however, as it is written, it is unclear whether it refers a length of an entire recess along the handle or a portion of the recess along the handle. Also, see Figure 5b, since the end portion 42 is bent, it has a recess and the length of the recess is much shorter while it is not bent).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the area of any reasonable range including the claimed range, 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. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size and shape, structural material of the handle, in order to allow the user comfortable grasp the handle of the shaving system during use. See all of the discussions above.
Regarding claim 5, Brellis shows a shaving razor system (see claims 1-4 above) comprising:
“a shaving razor cartridge having a shaving surface with at least one blade, the shaving razor cartridge having a proximal end;
a shaving razor handle comprising:
a proximal end configured to attach to the shaving razor cartridge; a distal end; an upper surface extending between the proximal end and the distal end (see Figure 4 above);
a lower surface extending between the proximal end and the distal end (see Figure 4);
a lower contacting surface at the distal end of the handle (see the free end portion in Figure 5b above), the shaving razor cartridge and the lower contacting surface of the distal end defining a generally horizontal resting plane with areas of contact to the generally horizontal resting plane includes the shaving razor cartridge and the lower contacting surface at the distal end, wherein an area defined by the generally horizontal resting plane and the shaving razor system is about 900 mm² to about 1300 mm² (see the discussion in claim 1 above) and a length extending from the proximal end of the shaving razor cartridge to the distal end of the shaving razor handle is less than 130 mm (see the handle is 125mm, Para. 32).
Regarding claims 7-9, Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle is spaced furthest apart from the generally horizontal resting plane at about 40% to about 60% of the length or at about 45% to about 55% of the length (see Figure 4 it is about 45-50% of the handle length), wherein the length is about 120 mm to about 130 mm (125mm, Para. 32).
Regarding claim 10, Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle is spaced apart from the generally horizontal resting plane a distance of about 25 mm to about 35 mm at about 40% to about 60% of the length (see Figure 4 above, the DF is 21mm as discussed in Para. 41 and the handle end 42, Figure 5b is bent a position whether the shaving razor handle can be spaced apart from the generally horizontal resting plane a distance of about 25 mm to about 35 mm at about 40% to about 60% of the length).
Regarding claim 11, Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle has a generally convex upper surface and a generally concave lower surface (see Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 12, Brellis shows that the area extending between the generally horizontal resting plane and the shaving razor system is about 1000 mm² to about 1200 mm² (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle has a nominal thickness of about 10 mm to about 14 mm (Para. 35 “15mm…” that is about 14mm and meets the range).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the handle thickness of any reasonable range including the claimed range, 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. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the size and shape, structural material of the handle, in order to allow the user comfortable grasp the handle of the shaving system during use and allow the handle end to be flexed or bent.
Regarding Claim 15, Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle comprises an upper surface that is generally convex and an opposing lower surface that is generally concave (see Figure 4 above and claim 11).
Regarding Claim 16, Brellis shows that the upper surface has a proximal end defining a recessed area configured to receive multiple digits of a user, the recessed area of the proximal end having a width of about 20 mm to about 35 mm (see the discussion in claim 3 above).
Regarding Claim 17, Brellis shows that a lower surface has a distal end defining a recessed area configured to receive multiple digits of a user, the recessed area of the distal end having a surface area of about 800 mm² to about 1500 mm² (see the discussion in claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 18, Brellis shows that a lower surface has the distal end defining a recessed area configured to receive multiple digits of a user, the recessed area of the distal end having a length of about 50 mm to about 70 mm (see the discussion in claim 4 above).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Brellis shows that the shave plane and the generally horizontal resting plane define an angle less than 15 degrees or an angle of about 8 degrees to about 12 degrees (see the discussion in claim 1 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brellis et al (US 2020/0086516) hereinafter Brellis in view of Thomas (EP1321250 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Brellis shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the shaving razor cartridge is removably attached to the proximal end of the shaving razor handle.
It is well-known in the art that a cartridge is removable attached to a handle, for an example, see Thomas’s Figure 1 and a blade cartridge (14) is removably attached to a handle (18 via a trigger 78, Para. 18 “When the user elects to replace the replaceable cartridge 14 with a new cartridge 14, the user actuates one of the trigger 78 or the button 88. …and causes the replaceable cartridge 14 to be ejected from the tab pockets 48,50….Once the used replaceable cartridge 14 is ejected, a new replaceable cartridge 14 can be fixedly attached to the cartridge seat 20”).
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 system of Brellis to have the cartridge to be replaceable, as taught by Thomas, in order to allow the blade cartridge can be replaced for a new blade cartridge if needed (instead of disposing a whole razor system).
Regarding claim 14, the modified razor system of Brellis shows that the shaving razor handle comprises a cartridge ejection button (78, Figure 1 of Thomas) on a lower surface of the shaving razor handle facing the generally horizontal resting plane (see the trigger 78 of Thomas on facing to a shaving plane or a horizontal resting plane as defined).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 3388211 A1, US 20040177518 A1 show a handle is flexed such that a distance the shaving plane and the handle distal end is within the claimed range and US 11345056 B1 shows a curved handle.
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 8/3/2026
Prosecution Insights