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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
A paragraph needs to be added at the beginning of page 1 of the specification explaining how the instant application is a divisional from 18/344,216 which is now U.S. Patent 12,350,850 which is a divisional from 16/841,375 which is now U.S. Patent 11,794,363.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 13, the abstract, and page 6 lines 12-14 of the specification, the phrase “the cutting edges 26a, 26b and 26c may be positioned a vertical distance “d2” below a plane P1 tangent to the top surface 36 of the front wall 34 and a top surface 37 of the rear wall” is unclear and does not appear to be supported. Figures 4 and 5 clearly disclose the cutting edges being “above” and not below this plane. It is unclear what structure allows for the cutting edge to be considered below the plane. The dimension “d2” is also unclear. It is clear that the upper boundary of d2 is the plane 64 defined by the cutting edges 26 but the lower boundary is not clear. It is unclear what structure defines the lower boundary of d2. The lower boundary of d2 cannot be defined by plane P1 as P1 only intersects the lower boundary at one point and is spaced from the lower boundary at all other points. The dimension d2 would not be associated with surface 37 as the measurement between 37 and plane 64 is disclosed as d6. All other occurrences where the cutting edges are listed as being “below the plane” must be amended as well.
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 does not have a preamble. Adding the following overcomes the issues in the next paragraph as well “A shaving razor cartridge comprising when in the upright position”.
The claims use the terms “top”, “below” (“above”), “upper” “lower”, and “vertical” which are indefinite because the apparatus is handheld tool and can be used in an infinite number of orientations including ones that do not correspond with the terms above. It is recommended that the Figure 4 be labeled as “an upright position” in the Brief Description or the Detailed Description of the specification. Then, after the preamble of claim 10, add the phrase “when in the upright position”. This makes it clear what can and cannot associated with the terms above.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “skin contacting surface with a plurality of ribs defining a plurality of open slots” is unclear. It is the surfaces of the ribs that contact the skin. There is not a single skin contacting surface as claimed.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “the front face having a lower surface interconnecting a plurality of ribs that define a plurality of open slots” is unclear. As written, these ribs and slots are in addition to the ribs and slots previously disclosed earlier in claim 1 which is not supported. The same ribs from earlier in claim 1 all have another surface that defines the front face. There is one set of ribs defining one set of slots and the claim needs to be amended so this is maintained.
With regards to claim 1 line 8, the phrase “the blade” needs to be replaced with “the at least one blade”.
Claim 2 is confusing in that is reintroducing the “a vertical distance limitation already disclosed in claim 1.
With regards to claim 3, the phrase “about 0.5mm to about 3mm” is unclear. Claim 2 discloses “at least 0.5mm” and “about 0.5mm” in claim 3 can be 0.49mm which is not at least 0.5mm. It is recommended that the claim 3 range be replaced with “at least 0.5mm to about 5mm” of claim 3’s dependency be changed to depend from claim 1.
Claim 4 is confusing in that this specific vertical distance (at least 0.75mm) is not disclosed in the specification (see d1 disclosures). This distance is in the supported range but is not listed in the specification so it is unclear if this disclosure is a typo or not. This vertical distance value of at least 0.75mm needs to be added to the specification to provide support or this value needs to be replaced with a value that is disclosed in the specification. Claim 5 has the same issue with the range for R1 not disclosing the claimed range in the specification.
With regards to claims 5 and 8, as written the radius and the exterior angle are unrelated to the ribs which is not supported. At least one of the ribs needs to be included in the definition of the radius and the exterior angle.
With regards to claim 6, claim 1 discloses “at least one blade” and it is unclear if the at least two blades of claim 6 include the claim 1 blade. Claim 6 needs to disclose “the at least one blade is two blades immediately adjacent to each other where the cutting edges are spaced apart by a distance greater than 1.75mm”.
With regards to claim 7, the “spaced apart” disclosure is unclear. As written, the ribs define slots and are separately spaced apart which is not supported. The slots are the “spaced apart” dimension.
With regards to claim 9, what structure defines the front interior face? Claim 1 discloses the front wall and claim 9 needs to disclose the front interior face is part of the front wall.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more of the cutting edges" on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase should be replaced with “the cutting edges”.
Claims 15-20 are confusing as the “first pair” of cutting edges and the “second pair” of cutting edges disclosures do not reference back to the original cutting edges disclosures. As written, the “pairs” of first and second cutting edges are in addition to cutting edges of claim 10 which is not supported. The phrases need to be replaced with “a first pair of the cutting edges” and “a second pair of the cutting edges”.
Claims 17 and 19 are unclear because they depend from claims 15 and 16 respectively. Claims 17 and 19 do not acknowledge that claims 15 and 16 already disclose two of the three cutting edges. Therefore, as written, claims 17 and 19 disclose two separate pairs of cutting edges (first and second) or 4 cutting edges which is not supported. Claims 17 and 19 need to be amended that one of the cutting edges from claims 15 and 16 is included in the respective claim 17 and 19 pairs of cutting edges to correspond with what is shown in the Figures.
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 10-12 and 14 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gilder (2002/0000040) hereafter called G040. See Figure below for Examiner added reference labels.
With regards to claims 10-12 and 14, G040 discloses a subassembly for a shaving razor cartridge including a base (Figs. 1 and 4) having a front wall (3) with a top surface (30) and a rear wall (4) with a top surface (15), a plane tangent to the top surfaces (PT), a plurality of blades (6) mounted to the base (Fig. 4), each of the blades having a cutting edge (7), the cutting edges define a cutting plane (11), the top surface of the front wall is below the cutting plane tangent (30 is below 11 in Fig. 4), the top surface has a length (Fig. 3), and a distance between the cutting edges and the plane tangent to the top surfaces is greater closest to the front wall and the least closest to the rear wall (11 is closest to PT at 15 in comparison to PT at 30).
With regards to claims 10-12, G040 fails to the top surface of the front wall is at least 0.5mm and less than 5mm below the cutting plane and the length of the top surface of the front wall is about 17mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the distance between the top surface of the front wall and the cutting plane within 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the length any reasonable length including the claimed length, 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). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of G040 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10-12. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 15-20 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over G040 in view of Gilder et al. (6,212,777) hereafter called G777.
With regards to claims 15-20, G040 discloses a distance between a first pair of immediately adjacent cutting edges closest to the front wall (1st Pair in the Figure below) and a second pair of immediately adjacent cutting edges closest to the rear wall (2nd Pair in the Figure below).
However, G040 fails to disclose the distance ranges.
G777 teaches it is known in the art of blade spacings to incorporate a value of 2mm which falls within all of the ranges (S2 can be 2mm and S3 can be 2mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided G040 with the distances, as taught by G777, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1-9 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
16 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights