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 without traverse of Group I(A), encompassing claims 1, 2 and 13, in the reply filed on 9/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. It is unclear whether the present drawings illustrate the features of claims 2 and 13 because the following features are not indicated with a reference character in the present drawings:
reinforcing elements (see at least claim 2)
reinforcing ribs that completely fill a U-shaped cross-section of the elongated hollow body of the handle (see at least claim 2)
support element (see at least claim 13)
Therefore, the features of claims 2 and 13 should be shown in the present drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the features of claims 2 and 13 are shown in the drawings, then the reinforcing elements and support element should be indicated with reference characters to make clear that these features are illustrated (see MPEP 608.01(o), explaining that in mechanical cases the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2:
it is unclear how “the transverse direction with respect to the handle” should be interpreted; the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines transverse as “acting, lying, or being across”, thus it appears that any direction across the handle could reasonably be considered transverse
similarly, as discussed above, it is unclear how the term “longitudinal” should be interpreted; Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite that the longitudinal rib extends perpendicularly to the reinforcing ribs
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “reinforcing element” as recited in at least claim 2 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “reinforcing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “reinforcing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
• “support element” as recited in at least claim 13 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “support”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “support” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 and 13 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 2, it is unclear what is intended by the claim limitation “reinforcing ribs having a height that is significantly less than a height of the handle”. First, it is not clear how a height of the handle or the reinforcing ribs is defined. Second, it is unclear what constitutes “significantly”. Must the height of the reinforcing ribs be less than 50% the height of the handle? Less than 25%? How close in height can the structures be before the reinforcing ribs no longer have a height “significantly” less than the handle?
Further regarding claim 2, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “reinforcing ribs that completely fill a U-shaped cross-section of the elongated hollow body of the handle”. Specifically, it is not clear how the reinforcing ribs could completely fill the cross section; if the reinforcing ribs were to completely fill the cross section, it appears that the handle could no longer comprise a hollow body. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, claim limitations “reinforcing elements” and “support element” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the limitation to the reinforcing elements, it is unclear if this term is intended to represent the reinforcing ribs or some other structure. Based on pg. 2, lines 12-27 of the instant specification, it appears that the reinforcing elements may be a variety of differently shaped structures within the handle that provide increased stability. In other words, it seems that the reinforcing ribs may be a type of reinforcing element. Regarding the limitation to the support element, the written description states that “the razor head consists of a support element made of injection-molded thermoplastic to which razor blades are attached”, however it is unclear if the support element is intended to comprise the entire razor head, or only a specific portion of the razor head (see pg. 7, lines 6-8 of instant specification). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psimadas (US 20170173809) in view of Jungnickel (US 20220143854).
Regarding claim 1, Psimadas discloses a shaving device (shaving razor 1; see fig. 1), comprising: a handle (razor handle 2; see fig. 1); and a razor head adapted to be attached to the handle (shaving cartridge 3 can be connected to razor handle 2; see paragraph [0050] and fig. 1) and to carry at least one razor blade (shaving cartridge 3 includes one or several blades 3A; see paragraph [0050] and fig. 1), wherein the handle is a molded part having an elongated hollow body open on one side (elongated body 4 of razor handle 2 can be molded from a thermoplastic material and also includes cavity 20; see paragraph [0064] and figs. 2B, 4).
Psimadas does not explicitly disclose wherein the handle is a molded fiber part.
Jungnickel discloses a handle for a personal care implement wherein at least a portion of the handle is formed from a fiber-reinforced material (see paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Psimadas in view of Jungnickel to make the handle from a molded fiber part. Jungnickel discloses a handle for a personal care implement wherein at least a portion of the handle is formed from a fiber-reinforced material (see paragraph [0033]). A variety of different fibers can be used to achieve various effects; for example, wood fibers may be used to improve flexural strength, tensile modulus, and tensile strength (see paragraph [0037]). Therefore, in order to improve various mechanical properties of the handle, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Psimadas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Psimadas as modified further discloses wherein the handle further includes at least one of the following: reinforcing elements arranged in the elongated hollow body that forms the handle (elongated body 4 includes a plurality of ribs 17; see paragraph [0095] and fig. 2B); a plurality of reinforcing ribs spaced apart from one another and traversing the elongated hollow body of the handle in a transverse direction with respect to the handle (elongated body 4 includes a plurality of ribs 17 which are spaced apart and extend in a transverse direction; see paragraph [0095] and fig. 2B); reinforcing ribs that completely fill a U-shaped cross-section of the elongated hollow body of the handle (elongated body 4 includes a plurality of ribs 17 which cover substantially the entire surface of lower face 4B; see paragraph [0095] and fig. 2B); reinforcing ribs having a height that is significantly less than a height of the handle (ribs 17 have a height (measured in a direction along median plane P1) which is significantly less than the height of razor handle 2; see fig. 2B); at least one longitudinal rib in the elongated hollow body of the handle (core portion 17A forms a longitudinal rib extending perpendicular to ribs 17; see paragraph [0095] and fig. 2B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psimadas (US 20170173809) in view of Jungnickel (US 20220143854), and further in view of Chatzigrigoriou (US 20210095116).
Regarding claim 13, Psimadas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Psimadas as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the razor head includes a support element made of a biodegradable thermoplastic.
Chatzigrigoriou discloses an element of a razor made from a biodegradable thermoplastic (razor handles may be formed from a mixture of biodegradable thermoplastic polymers; see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Psimadas in view of Chatzigrigoriou to make the support element out of a biodegradable thermoplastic. Chatzigrigoriou discloses a razor handle which is made from a biodegradable thermoplastic polymer. Chatzigrigoriou further discloses that using a biodegradable thermoplastic maintains good mechanical properties such as impact resistance, while also reducing plastic consumption; thus, a more sustainable option for producing disposable razors is provided (see paragraphs [0005-0006, 0034]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this teaching could apply to other elements of a razor that are typically formed from plastic. As a result, applying the teachings of Chatzigrigoriou to the device of Psimadas as modified would yield a razor head formed out of a biodegradable thermoplastic. Therefore, in order to provide a way to sustainably produce disposable razors while maintaining suitable mechanical properties, such a modification would be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US D364707 to Shurtleff, drawn to a razor; US 20150224657 to Bolcar, drawn to an extender and method for holding a razor; US 20110017387 to Murgida, drawn to the manufacture of pivoting resilient skin contacting members; and US 20180257249 to Wattam, drawn to a razor handle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
