DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 10-31-2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 15 were amended. Claims 3, 7-10, 12-14, 19-20, 22-26 were cancelled. New Claims 29-32 were presented. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 15-18, 21 and 27-32 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 21, 27, 15, 16, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, US 2007/00227010 to Zhuk and US 7,047,646 to Coffin.
In re Claim 1, Ozenick teaches a razor cartridge (see Ozenick, Para. 0013) comprising:
a housing with a frame and a first blade slot, and second blade slot and a non-cutting element (see Figs. 1-3, teaching blades #12/14/16/18 with slots in front and behind each blade and non-cutting elements #42/44/46);
a first razor blade positioned in the first blade slot (see Fig. 3, blade #14 in slot #34), a second razor blade position in the second blade slot (see Fig. 3, blade #16 in slot #36), each of said razor blades having a cutting edge positioned between the guard and the cap (see Fig. 3, showing the razor blade cutting edges between #54 and #52, where a guard and cap would be located), wherein the non-cutting element is positioned between the first blade slot and the second blade slot such that the non-cutting element is positioned between the first razor blade and the second razor blade (see Fig. 3, #44 positioned between slot #34 and slot #36), wherein each said cutting edge of said first and second razor blade is directed toward the front edge (see Fig.3 showing razor blades directed toward #52),
the non-cutting element comprises a top surface (see Fig. 3 showing #42/44/46 having a “top surface” that contacts the skin).
Ozenick does not teach wherein a rinse-through gap is provided immediately before and a rinse through gap is provided immediately after said at least one non-cutting element,
wherein the noncutting element comprises a top surface wherein the top surface is discontinuous, and
wherein the first razor blade and the second razor blade has a negative exposure relative to the non-cutting element, wherein the negative exposure is up to -0.3mm, and wherein the first razor blade has a negative exposure in relation to the guard bar and the second razor blade has a negative exposure in relation to the guard bar.
However, Bunnell teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridges to provide a rinse-through gaps between blades (see Fig. 5A, #30 and Para. 0033). 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 add a rinse through gap in front and behind each razor blade as taught by Bunnell. Doing so allows water to pass between the blades, rinsing any debris from there between (see Bunnell, Para. 0033). Such a construction, a rinse through gap in front and behind each blade would provide for a rinse-through gap is provided immediately before and a rinse through gap is provided immediately after said at least one non-cutting element.
Additionally, Oldroyd teaches that it is known to provide a cartridge with a guard and cap (see Oldroyd, Abstract, Fig. 1, #2/#3, and Col. 2, ll. 52-65), as well as wherein the noncutting element comprises a top surface wherein the top surface is discontinuous (see Oldroyd, Fig. 5, #22, Figs. 10-11, #32 and Fig. 2, #12).
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 guard and cap construction cartridge as taught by Oldroyd (see Oldroyd, Abstract, Fig. 1, #2/#3, and Col. 2, ll. 52-65). Doing so is the substitution of one known cartridge construction for another known cartridge construction in order to package razor blade for commercial use (see MPEP 2143, I, b). Doing so would allow provide the surfaces serving in establishing shaving geometry in order to improve the user’ shaving quality (see Oldroyd, Col. 1, ll. 5-20).
Additionally, in the same field of invention, Oldroyd teaches it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide the top surface of modified Ozenick as discontinuous (see Oldroyd, Col. 1, ll. 39 – Col. 2, ll. 10 and Fig. 5, #22, Figs. 10-11, #32 and Fig. 2, #12). Doing so would provide for skis or runners that slide over the skin surface thereby guiding the blade for effective contact with the skiing while deterring any tendency for blade displacement (see Oldroyd, Col. 1, ll. 53 - Col. 2, ll. 10).
Zhuk teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridge blades to provide a blade “behind,” a non-cutting element, in the direction of the of shaving, with a negative exposure (see Zhuk, Fig. 1, #11 “behind” noncutting element #2; see also Para. 0017-0018). The Examiner interpreted wherein the negative exposure is up to -0.3mm as a range of between -0.01mm to -0.3mm, in view of Applicant’s Pg. 13, ll. 22-27. Zhuk teaches blade #11 having a negative exposure of -0.04.
In the same field of invention, blades for razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to negatively expose a blade “behind,” in the shaving direction, as taught by Zhuk with a negative exposure of -0.04mm. Doing so prevents nicks or cuts to the user but will provide a desirable shave because the skin will bulge to flow into the recessed area and towards the blade (see Para. 0017-18).
Further, Coffin teaches that it is known, when having multiple bladed cartridges to provide the first and second blades having negative exposure (see Coffin, Col. 5, ll. 25-55 teaching the first and second blades having increased sharpness and both having negative exposure). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to have the first two blades set at a negative exposure. Doing so permits the sharper razor blades to operate where they are less apt to create irritation and still provide the improved performance, and the standard sharpness blades, which are less apt to cause irritation, to operate in a position where they can closely shave the surface (see Coffin, Col. 5, ll. 25-55).
In re Claim 4, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the non-cutting element has a plurality of open slots defined between a pair of projections disposed next to each other (see Oldroyd, Fig. 5, #22, Figs. 10-11, #32 and Fig. 2, #12 which are projections next to each other).
In re Claim 21, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first razor blade and the second razor blade are consecutive razor blades along a width of the cartridge between the guard and the cap (see Ozenick Fig. 3, #14/#16).
In re Claim 27, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the rinse-through gap provided immediately before the non-cutting element is between 0.05mm to 0.5mm and the rinse- through gap provided immediately after the non-cutting element is between 0.05mm to 0.6mm (see Bunnell, Para. 0013 teaching an “inter-blade spans of approximately 1.0 mm, or less” which is a range of 0.0 to 1.0mm rinse through gaps in view of Bunnell Fig. 5).
In re Claim 15, Ozenick teaches a razor cartridge (see Ozenick, Para. 013) comprising:
a housing having and a frame with a first blade slot and a second blade slot and a non-cutting element formed as a portion of the frame (see Figs. 1-3, teaching blades #12/14/16/18 with slots in front and behind each blade and non-cutting elements #42/44/46, and slots #32/#34/#36, #36);
a first razor blade positioned in the first blade slot (see Fig. 3, blade #14 in slot #34) and a second razor blade positioned in the second blade slot (see Fig. 3, blade #16 in slot #36), each of said razor blades having a cutting edge positioned between the guard and the cap (see Fig. 3, showing the razor blade cutting edges between #54 and #52, where a guard and cap would be located), the non-cutting element is spaced apart from the first razor blade and the second razor blade (see Fig. 3, #44 between #14/#16), wherein each said cutting edge of said first and second razor blades is directed toward a front of said cartridge (see Fig.3 showing razor blades directed toward #52).
Ozenick does not teach a guard, a cap;
wherein a rinse-through gap is provided immediately before and a rinse-through gap is provided immediately after the non-cutting element, and wherein the non-cutting element comprises an elastomeric guard-like element comprising fins,
wherein at least one of the first razor blade or the second razor blade has a negative exposure relative to the non-cutting element, wherein the negative exposure is up to -0.3mm, and wherein the first razor blade has a negative exposure in relation to the guard bar and the second razor blade has a negative exposure in relation to the guard bar.
However, Bunnell teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridges to provide a rinse-through gaps between blades (see Fig. 5A, #30 and Para. 0033). 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 add a rinse through gap in front and behind each razor blade as taught by Bunnell. Doing so allows water to pass between the blades, rinsing any debris from there between (see Bunnell, Para. 0033). Such a construction, a rinse through gap in front and behind each blade would provide for a rinse-through gap is provided immediately before and a rinse through gap is provided immediately after said at least one non-cutting element.
Additionally, Oldroyd teaches that it is known to provide a cartridge with a guard and cap (see Oldroyd, Abstract, Fig. 1, #2/#3, and Col. 2, ll. 52-65), as well as wherein the non-cutting element comprises an elastomeric guard-like element comprising fins (see Oldroyd, Fig. 5, #22, Figs. 10-11, #32 and Fig. 2, #12 and Col. 3, ll. 34-Col. 4, ll. 21, teaching #30 made of injection molded plastics and comprising “fins”).
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 guard and cap construction cartridge as taught by Oldroyd (see Oldroyd, Abstract, Fig. 1, #2/#3, and Col. 2, ll. 52-65). Doing so is the substitution of one known cartridge construction for another known cartridge construction in order to package razor blade for commercial use (see MPEP 2143, I, b). Doing so would allow provide the surfaces serving in establishing shaving geometry in order to improve the user’ shaving quality (see Oldroyd, Col. 1, ll. 5-20).
Additionally, in the same field of invention, Oldroyd teaches it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide the non-cutting element of modified Ozenick comprises an elastomeric guard-like element comprising fins, as taught by Oldroyd (see Oldroyd, Col. 1, ll. 39 – Col. 2, ll. 10 and Fig. 5, #22, Figs. 10-11, #32 and Fig. 2, #12 and Col. 3, ll. 34-Col. 4, ll. 21, teaching #30 made of injection molded plastics and comprising “fins”). Doing so would provide for skis or runners that slide over the skin surface thereby guiding the blade for effective contact with the skiing while deterring any tendency for blade displacement (see Oldroyd, Col. 1, ll. 53 - Col. 2, ll. 10).
Zhuk teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridge blades to provide a blade “behind,” a non-cutting element, in the direction of the of shaving, with a negative exposure (see Zhuk, Fig. 1, #11 “behind” noncutting element #2; see also Para. 0017-0018). The Examiner interpreted wherein the negative exposure is up to -0.3mm as a range of between -0.01mm to -0.3mm, in view of Applicant’s Pg. 13, ll. 22-27. Zhuk teaches blade #11 having a negative exposure of -0.04.
In the same field of invention, blades for razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to negatively expose a blade “behind,” in the shaving direction, as taught by Zhuk with a negative exposure of -0.04mm. Doing so prevents nicks or cuts to the user but will provide a desirable shave because the skin will bulge to flow into the recessed area and towards the blade (see Para. 0017-18).
Further, Coffin teaches that it is known, when having multiple bladed cartridges to provide the first and second blades having negative exposure (see Coffin, Col. 5, ll. 25-55 teaching the first and second blades having increased sharpness and both having negative exposure). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to have the first two blades set at a negative exposure. Doing so permits the sharper razor blades to operate where they are less apt to create irritation and still provide the improved performance, and the standard sharpness blades, which are less apt to cause irritation, to operate in a position where they can closely shave the surface (see Coffin, Col. 5, ll. 25-55).
In re Claim 16, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 15, teaches wherein the non-cutting element has a plurality of open slots defined between a pair of projections disposed next to each other (see Oldroyd, Fig. 5, #22, Figs. 10-11, #32 and Fig. 2, #12 teaching slots between elements/projections).
In re Claim 28, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the rinse-through gap provided immediately before the non-cutting element is between 0.05mm to 0.5mm and the rinse- through gap provided immediately after the non-cutting element is between 0.05mm to 0.6mm (see Bunnell, Para. 0013 teaching an “inter-blade spans of approximately 1.0 mm, or less” which is a range of 0.0 to 1.0mm rinse through gaps in view of Bunnell Fig. 5).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, US 2007/00227010 to Zhuk and US 7,047,646 to Coffin, and further in view of US 2006/0277759 to Follo.
In re Claim 2, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a blade exposure of both the first and second razor blades is negative relative to the non-cutting element. However, Follo teaches that it is known in art to provide a blade exposure of blades being negative relative to a non-cutting element (see Follo, Para. 0031 and Para. 0040).
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 blade exposure that is negative relative to the non-cutting element, as taught by Follo. Doing so reduces the number of nicks and cuts the user experiences (see Follo, Para. 0006).
Claim 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, US 2007/00227010 to Zhuk and US 7,047,646 to Coffin, and further in view of US 5,953,813 to Simms.
In re Claim 5, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a leading end portion of the slots capable of receiving hairs and the slot's trailing end portion capable of feeding the hair to the blades but is silent as to a width of the leading end portion being 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. However, Simms teaches that the gap between skin contacting protrusions is a result effective variable (see Simms, Fig. 1, “A”). In the same field of invention, protrusions on skin contacting member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the leading end portion between 0.1mm to 0.5mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claim 6, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein a pitch of the open slots to be 0.20 mm to 1 mm (Oldroyd teaches a width between flat lateral faces of the non-cutting elements to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 mm wherein the non-cutting elements are positioned at a pitch of 0.5mm to 1.5mm - see Oldroyd, Col. 2, ll. 17-22).
In re Claim 17, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 15, teaches wherein a leading end portion of the slots capable of receiving hairs and the slot's trailing end portion capable of feeding the hair to the blades but is silent as to a width of the leading end portion being 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. However, Simms teaches that the gap between skin contacting protrusions is a result effective variable (see Simms, Fig. 1, “A”). In the same field of invention, protrusions on skin contacting member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the leading end portion between 0.1mm to 0.5mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re Claim 18, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 17, teaches wherein a pitch of the open slots to be 0.20 mm to 1 mm (Oldroyd teaches a width between flat lateral faces of the non-cutting elements to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 mm wherein the non-cutting elements are positioned at a pitch of 0.5mm to 1.5mm - see Oldroyd, Col. 2, ll. 17-22).
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, US 2007/00227010 to Zhuk and US 7,047,646 to Coffin, and further in view of US 2012/0324737 to Howell.
In re Claim 11, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the non-cutting element is embedded with a shaving aid material. Howell teaches that providing a skin contacting element embedded with a shaving aid material is old and well known in the art (e.g., paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to employ a skin contacting element embedded with a shaving material as taught by Howell in order to enhance a shaving action on modified Gilder.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, US 2007/00227010 to Zhuk and US 7,047,646 to Coffin, and further in view of US 6,295,734 to Gilder.
In re Claim 29, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the negative exposure for the first razor blade in relation to the guard bar is between -0.18 mm to -0.01mm. However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the razor art to provide a negative exposure between 0 to -0.2mm (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize a negative exposure of between 0 to -0.2mm, at taught by Gilder. Doing so is the most efficacious geometrical arrangement (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30).
In re Claim 30, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the negative exposure for the second razor blade in relation to the guard bar is between -0.18 mm to -0.01mm. However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the razor art to provide a negative exposure between 0 to -0.2mm (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize a negative exposure of between 0 to -0.2mm, at taught by Gilder. Doing so is the most efficacious geometrical arrangement (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30).
In re Claim 31, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the negative exposure for the first razor blade in relation to the guard bar is between -0.18 mm to -0.01mm. However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the razor art to provide a negative exposure between 0 to -0.2mm (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize a negative exposure of between 0 to -0.2mm, at taught by Gilder. Doing so is the most efficacious geometrical arrangement (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30).
In re Claim 32, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the negative exposure for the second razor blade in relation to the guard bar is between -0.18 mm to -0.01mm. However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the razor art to provide a negative exposure between 0 to -0.2mm (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30). In the same field of invention, razor cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize a negative exposure of between 0 to -0.2mm, at taught by Gilder. Doing so is the most efficacious geometrical arrangement (see Gilder Col. 1, ll. 25-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, US 2007/00227010 to Zhuk US 2008/072431 to Ozenick in view of US 20060218794 to Bunnell, and US 6,243,951 to Oldroyd, does not teach at least the first and second razors have a negative exposure relative to the non-cutting element, wherein the negative exposure is up to -0.3mm. The Examiner agrees that Zhuk only teaches the primary razor blade having negative exposure. However, as noted above, US 7,047,646 to Coffin teaches that it is known to provide the first two blades having negative exposure – see discussion above in re Claims 1 and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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