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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on August 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 16, 25, and 36 were amended. New claims 38-40 were added. Claims 17 and 37 were canceled. Claims 16, 20-23, 25-36, and 38-40 are pending. Claims 1-15, 17-19, 24, and 37 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 30, 2025. Claims 16, 20-23, 25-36, and 38-40 are examined in this action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 40 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 16, 20-23, 25-36, and 38-39, drawn to a subcombination of a shaving head, classified in CPC B26B21/00.
II. Claim 40, drawn to a combination of an apparatus for measuring rinsability of a shaving head, classified in CPC G01F1/00.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the claimed subcombination requires various components such as a guard, a first and second blade, a support, and a mounting portion (Claim 16, lines 1-2, "comprising a guard, a first blade, and a second blade"; Claim 16, lines 3-4, "a support… and a mounting portion"); all of which are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination has separate utility such as removing hairs from a user’s skin, from the utility of the claimed combination, that is measuring rinsability (Claim 40, line 1, “An apparatus for measuring rinsability of a shaving head”).
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The searches required for divergent unrelated elements to be performed in the same case is unreasonably burdensome. For example, “cutting edge portion“ as required by Invention I requires searching for that concept, including text to “blade“ and (relatedly, “tip“ and “knife“ etc.) and would require a search to CPC B26B21/02; whereas “an indication of an amount of water “ as required by Invention II requires searching for that concept, including text to “flow“ (and relatedly, “rinse“ and “liquid“ etc.) and would require a search to CPC G01F 1/002, in addition to their equivalent concepts, which are unrelated to the search for blade and tip concepts and require wholly different search terms than would be required to search the device as in Invention I. Similar divergent and unrelated text searches for each divergent concept (as plainly evident on the nature of each grouping above) to address the divergent subject matter in each group. It is clear that the groups of the claims will show (upon examination) significant divergent indefiniteness issues, which represent a serious examination burden in treating the groups together.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 40 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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. before the effective filing date of inventio
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 16, 20-23, 25-26, 28, 30-31, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al..
Regarding claim 16, Gilder et al. teaches a shaving head comprising a guard (Gilder et al., Abstract, line 58, “mounted in a frame (10) between guard and cap surfaces”), a first blade (see Examiner annotated Gilder et al. Figure 8, hereinafter known as “EAGF8”; first blade), and a second blade (EAGF8, second blade), each of the first blade and the second blade comprising a cutting element (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, blades 19 & 20) and a support (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, support bars 28), the cutting element comprising a cutting edge portion (EAGF8, cutting edge portions) and a mounting portion (EAGF8, mounting portions), the cutting edge portion presenting a cutting edge (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, cutting edges 24 & 25), the mounting portion extending from the cutting edge portion in an opposite direction from the cutting edge, the mounting portion being mounted on the support (EAGF8, mounting portions), the first blade and the second blade being arranged directly adjacent to one another such that the cutting edge of the cutting element of the first blade first and the cutting edge of the cutting element of the second blade are substantially parallel to each other and arranged to contact skin concurrently during shaving (EAGF8, first & second blades; Gilder et al., page 12, line 1, “A blade unit with four parallel blades is illustrated in Fig. 8), the cutting edge of the first blade and the cutting edge of the second blade defining a shaving surface (Gilder et al., page 11, lines 1-2, “the blade edges lie substantially in a common plane”).
Gilder et al. does not explicitly teach the platform portion having a thickness from 0.1 mm to 0.3mm.
Fitzgerald, however, does teach the support having a platform portion (Fitzgerald et al., Fig. 3, elongated bent metal supports 400) on which the mounting portion is mounted such that the platform portion extends along the mounting portion (Fitzgerald et al, Fig. 3, elongated blades 28), the platform portion having a thickness from 0.1 mm to 0.3mm (Fitzgerald, col. 3, lines 49-50, “Elongated bent metal support 400 is made of metal that is between 0.004” and 0.009” thick (dimension T)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have the platform portion of Gilder et al. have the thickness as taught by Fitzgerald et al. in order to provide a more accurate blade support for improved shaving performance (Fitzgerald et al., col. 4, lines 14-29, “because angled support 400 is cut and formed from thinner metal, it facilitates providing a reduced radius of curvature R… Such accurate blade support is necessary to provide desired blade geometry for desired shaving performance”).
Furthermore, while Gilder et al. does not explicitly teach that an inter-blade span, which is a distance between two directly adjacent cutting edges, between the cutting element of the first blade and the cutting element of the second blade ranges from 0.90 mm to 1.60 mm. However, Gilder et al. does teach an inter-blade span that ranges from 0.70 to 1.20mm, which overlaps with the claimed range (Gilder et al., pg. 8, lines 1-2, “the preferred range for the average inter-blade span is from 0.70 to 1.20mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to change the inter-blade span in order to optimize rinsability and comfort (Gilder et al., pg. 6, lines 17-20, “Also, with larger inter-blade spans it can be expected that a higher wash through index can be achieved… other important shaving performance characteristics, such as comfort”).
Further regarding claim 16, Gilder et al. also does not explicitly teach that an inter-blade clearance, which is a minimum distance between directly adjacent blades, between the first and second blade ranges from 0.25 mm to 0.55 mm.
Santhagens, however, does teach an inter-blade clearance that ranges from 0.25 mm to 0.55 mm (see Examiner annotated Santhagens Fig 2 and Inter-blade Clearance Examiner Calculations; inter-blade clearance = 0.4789 mm). The inter-blade clearance, or interspace e as seen in Santhagens Fig. 2, is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the length of interspace e changes the gaps b (Santhagens, pg. 3 line 24-pg. 4 line 9, “The small distance between the cutting edges 7… facilitated by the described configuration of the gaps”), which facilitates the flushing of debris (Santhagens, pg. 3, lines 31-32, “This facilitates the flushing of shaving debris from the narrowest gap e”; pg. 2, lines 3-4, “constricting the interspaces between the razor blades and therefore clogging up of the gaps between the razor blades”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the razor of the Gilder et al. to have an inter-blade clearance ranging from 0.25 mm to 0.55 mm as a matter of routine optimization (Further, Santhagens’ teaches an inter-blade clearance of 0.4789 which is within 0.25-0.55 mm).
Santhagens does not explicitly disclose an overlap.
Chang et al., however, does teach the cutting edge of the first blade extends past a portion of the support of the second blade such that the cutting edge portion of the first blade intersects a plane extending perpendicular from the shaving surface and extending through a portion of the support of the second blade (Chang et al. Figs. 6A & 6B, hatched region, adjacent blades 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have the first and second blades of the Gilder/Santhagens combination above overlap as taught by Chang et al. as a result effect variable of optimizing both the inter-blade span and the inter-blade clearance (see Chang et al. English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “CEMTD”; pg. 8, para. 3, “the span can control the degree to which the skin is convex of skin between the razor blades. For example, a narrow span reduces the swelling of the skin during shaving to improve the comfort of the skin, but reduces the cleaning efficiency”; pg. 8, para. 7, “As described above, when the narrow span Sn is formed, the cleaning efficiency of the razor is deteriorated because the overlap region”; pg. 9, para. 5, “As described above, even if the spans are the same, if the first separation distance X is formed short, the overlap size L becomes small, and the openability between the blades is improved”).
Chang et al. does not explicitly teach an overhang length of the first blade ranges from 0.91 mm to 1 mm.
Brette et al., however, does teach an overhang length of the first blade ranges from 0.91 mm to 1 mm (Brette et al., para. 148, lines 18-19 & lines 20-21, “The total length L2 of the blade 33 and the opposite back edge of the blade 33 is about 1 mm (for example, between 0.8 mm and 1.3 mm” & “a length L1 that is about 0.49 mm +/- 0.1 mm long”), the overhang length being a minimum distance (Brette et al., Fig. 8, length L1 & length L2) from the cutting edge (Brette et al., Fig. 8, cutting edge 30) of the first blade to a portion of the mounting portion of the first blade (Brette et al., Fig. 8, blade mounting portion 70) which is in contact with the support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang combination to have an overhang length ranging from 0.91 to 1 mm (overhang length = L2-L1; Max length = max value of L2 – min value of L1 = 1.3-0.39 = 0.91 mm; Min length = min value of L2 – max value of L1 = 0.8-0.59 = 0.21 mm) as taught by Brette et al. to optimize the security of attaching the cutting element onto the support (Brette et al., para. 148, lines 21-22, “a good retention of the blade on the underside of the blade support 32 (the inner surface of the blade support 32) is ensured”) (wherein Brette et al. teaches a range of 0.21 to 0.91 mm which overlaps with 0.91-1 mm).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
555
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
601
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. Gilder et al. discloses that the support further includes a base portion extending obliquely or perpendicularly from the platform portion for retention of the first blade to the guard (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, legs 29).
Therefore, Brette et al., does teach a base portion has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm (Brette et al., para. 106, lines 54-55, “the blade support 32 has a non-negligible thickness. For example, the blade support has a thickness in the range 0.12 mm – 0.21 mm”), as measured normal to an inner surface of the base portion (Brette et al., Fig. 8, T2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to make the thickness of the base portion range from 0.1-0.3 mm as taught by Brette et al. (wherein Brette et al. teaches a range of 0.12-0.21 mm which is within 0.1-0.3mm).
Regarding claim 21, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. The Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination discloses that the support further includes a base portion extending obliquely or perpendicularly from the platform portion for assembly of the first blade to the guard (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, legs 29).
Furthermore, Brette et al., however, does teach that the platform portion has a length of 0.5 mm to 0.9 mm (Brette et al., para. 148, lines 20-21, “a length L1 that is about 0.49 mm +/- 0.1 mm long”), the platform portion's length is measured along the mounting portion and perpendicular to the cutting edge portion's cutting edge (Brette et al., Fig. 8, cutting edge 30), from an interior vertex formed by surfaces of the platform portion and the base portion which face one another, towards the cutting edge of the cutting edge portion (Brette et al., Fig. 8, L1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the Gilder et al./Santhagens/Chang combination to have a platform portion length ranging from 0.5 mm to 0.9 mm as taught by Brette et al. to optimize the security of attaching the cutting element onto the support (Brette et al., para. 148, lines 21-22, “a good retention of the blade on the underside of the blade support 32 (the inner surface of the blade support 32) is ensured”) (wherein Brette et al. teaches a range of 0.39-0.59 mm which overlaps with 0.5-0.9 mm).
Regarding claim 22, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. Gilder et al. discloses that the support further includes a base portion extending obliquely or perpendicularly from the platform portion for assembly of the first blade to the second blade (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, legs 29).
Furthermore, Brette et al. does teach a ratio of a length of the platform portion to a length of the first blade ranges from 0.33 to 0.64 (Brette et al., para. 148, lines 18-19 & lines 20-21, “The total length L2 of the blade 33 and the opposite back edge of the blade 33 is about 1 mm (for example, between 0.8 mm and 1.3 mm” & “a length L1 that is about 0.49 mm +/- 0.1 mm long”), the platform portion's length is measured along the mounting portion, from an interior vertex formed by surfaces of the platform portion and the base portion which face one another, towards the cutting edge of the cutting edge portion (Brette et al., Fig. 8, L1), and the blade's length is measured along the mounting portion, from the interior vertex to the cutting edge (Brette et al., Fig. 8, L2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to modify the Gilder et al./Santhagens/Chang combination to have a ratio ranging from 0.33 to 0.64 (the min. range number of L1/min. range number of L2 = 0.49; the max range number of L1/max range number of L2 = 0.45) as taught by Brette et al. (wherein Brette et al. teaches a range of 0.45 to 0.49 which overlaps with 0.33-0.64).
Regarding claim 23, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. Gilder et al. further teaches that the support further includes a base portion extending obliquely or perpendicularly from the platform portion for assembly of the first blade to the second blade (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, legs 29).
Furthermore, Brette et al. does teach an outer surface of the base portion is arranged away from the platform portion, a width of the first blade ranges from 0.9 mm to 1.70 mm (Brette et al., para. 153, lines 34-35. “length L3 of cutting member 28… is about 1.0 mm (for example between 0.9 and 1.6 mm)”), the first blade's width is measured from the outer surface of the base portion to the cutting edge of the cutting edge portion in a direction normal to the outer surface of the base portion (Brette et al., Fig. 8, L3) and wherein an overlap length between the first blade and the second blade ranges from 0 mm to 0.55 mm (Gilder et al., pg. 8, lines 1-2, “the preferred range for the average inter-blade span is from 0.70 to 1.20mm; Brette et al., para. 153, lines 34-35, “length L3 of cutting member 28… is about 1.0 mm (for example between 0.9 and 1.6 mm)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to modify the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang combination to have a blade width range from 0.9 mm to 1.70 mm as taught by Brette et al. (wherein Brette et al. teaches a range of 0.9 to 1.6 mm which is within 0.9-1.70 mm) and an overlap length that ranges from 0 mm to 0.55 mm (the min. range number of L7 - min. range number of the average inter-blade span = 0.2 mm; the max range number of L7 – max range number of the average inter-blade span = 0.4 mm) as taught by Brette et al. (wherein Brette et al. teaches a range of 0.2 to 0.4 mm which is within 0-0.55 mm).
Regarding claim 25, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. For examination purposes, the claim limitation being considered is such that the support is intermediate the first cutting element and the second blade. Gilder et al. further teaches that the first blade and second blade are arranged directly adjacent to one another (EAGF8, first and second blades) such that the support (Gilder et al., Fig 8, support bar 28) is intermediate the cutting element of the first blade (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, blade 20 & cutting edge 25) and the second blade (EAGF8, second blade).
Regarding claim 26, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 25 above. Gilder et al. further teaches that the cutting element of the first blade is arranged on a surface of the support which is arranged towards skin during shaving (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, blade 20).
Regarding claim 28, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. Gilder et al. further teaches a razor comprising a shaving head according to claim 16 (Gilder et al., Claim 20, “A safety razor comprising a handle and a blade unit carried on the handle, the blade unit being as defined in any one of the preceding claims”).
Regarding claim 30, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16 above. Furthermore, Santhagens discloses a method of fabricating a shaving head according to claim 16, comprising providing the first blade and providing the second blade, and assembling the first blade and second blade together (Santhagens, Claim 4, lines 14-15, “A razor unit (1) comprising at least two razor blades (4) mounted parallel to each other”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gilder et al. to include the method of fabrication as taught by Santhagens as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Gilder et al.’s razor blade being made with Santhagens’ method of fabrication).
Regarding claim 31, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 30. Gilder et al. further teaches that the first blade includes providing the cutting element of the first blade (EAGF8, cutting edge portion) and providing the support of the first blade (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, support bar 28 & blade 25), and the support including a base portion for assembly of the first blade to the second blade (Gilder et al., Fig. 8, legs 29) and comprises a step of measuring rinsability of the shaving head (Gilder et al., Abstract, lines 59-60, “a measure of rinsability obtained by a method defined in the specification”).
Santhagens further teaches a method wherein providing the support comprises providing a flat element and bending the flat element to obtain the support (Santhagens, Claim 7, lines 12-15, “A method of manufacturing a razor blade (4) from a blank (19)… including bending the blank (19)”), and wherein providing the first blade lacks a step of removing material from the platform portion of the support subsequent to the bending step (Santhagens, Claims 12, lines 11-12, “a grinding station (15) for grinding the cutting edges (7)… and the bending station (16)”; Examiner note: this reference indicates that there is not another step after bending, therefore lacking a step of removing material after the bending step).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gilder et al. to include the method of bending as taught by Santhagens as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Gilder et al.’s blades being manufactured via Santhagens’ method of bending). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gilder et al. to include the method of measuring rinsability as taught by Santhagens in order to test the rinsability of the product for further improvements for user experience (in this case, Gilder et al.’s razor undergoing Santhagens’ method of measuring rinsability).
Regarding claim 38, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16. Furthermore, Brette et al. discloses a length (Brette et al., Fig. 8, L1) of the platform portion is equal to a length of contact between the mounting portion (Brette et al., Fig. 8, blade mounting portion 70) and the platform portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang combination to have a length of the platform portion as taught by Brette et al. to optimize the security of attaching the cutting element onto the support (Brette et al., para. 148, lines 21-22, “a good retention of the blade on the underside of the blade support 32 (the inner surface of the blade support 32) is ensured”).
Regarding claim 39, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 38 above. Furthermore, Chang et al., discloses the cutting edge of the first blade and an end of the mounting portion of the second blade touch a plane extending perpendicular from the shaving surface (Chang et al. Figs. 6A & 6B, hatched region, adjacent blades 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have the first and second blades of the Gilder/Santhagens combination above overlap as taught by Chang et al. as a result effect variable of optimizing both the inter-blade span and the inter-blade clearance (see Chang et al. English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “CEMTD”; pg. 8, para. 3, “the span can control the degree to which the skin is convex of skin between the razor blades. For example, a narrow span reduces the swelling of the skin during shaving to improve the comfort of the skin, but reduces the cleaning efficiency”; pg. 8, para. 7, “As described above, when the narrow span Sn is formed, the cleaning efficiency of the razor is deteriorated because the overlap region”; pg. 9, para. 5, “As described above, even if the spans are the same, if the first separation distance X is formed short, the overlap size L becomes small, and the openability between the blades is improved”).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al. as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of WO 2012158141 A1 by Prochaska et al..
Regarding claim 27, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 25 above. Furthermore, Gilder et al. does not explicitly teach that the first cutting element is arranged away from skin during shaving.
Prochaska et al., however, does teach that the cutting element of the first blade is arranged on a surface of the support which is arranged away from skin during shaving (Prochaska et al., Fig. 12, blade 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting element arranged toward the skin of Gilder et al. to have the cutting element arranged away from the skin in order to increase shaving comfort (Prochaska et al., pg. 16, lines 13-14, “can therefore act as a guard to increase shaving comfort”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of WO 2006108175 A1 by Bunnell et al..
Regarding claim 29, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 28 above. The Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination does not explicitly teach a razor comprising a vibrator.
Bunnell et al., however, does teach a vibrator (Bunnell et al., pg. 1, lines 17-18, “such as a motorized spinning eccentric weight that cause the shaving implement to vibrate”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to add a vibrator as taught by Bunnell et al. to the razor of the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination in order to provide a closer shave (Bunnell et al., pg. 1, line 20, “such as, but not limited to, providing a closer shave”).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of WO 2010118771 A1 by Kemos et al..
Regarding claim 32, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 30 above. Furthermore, Gilder et al. discloses wherein providing the first blade includes providing the cutting element (EAGF8, cutting edge portion) of the first blade (EAGF8, first blade). Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette does not explicitly disclose cropping the cutting element.
Kemos et al., however, does teach wherein providing the cutting element of the first blade comprises cropping the cutting element from a section of material after the section of material is mounted on the platform portion (Kemos et al., Fig. 1, blade assembly station 12 & breaking station 14; Kemos, pg. 6, lines 11-12 & 16-17, “a blade assembly station 12 adapted to assemble a blade to a blade support… a breaking station 14, adapted to break a part of the blade”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to crop the cutting element of Gilder et al. from a section of material after mounting as taught by Kemos et al. in order to separate the excess material from the cutting member for razor assembly (Kemos, pg. 18, lines 2-6, “The breaking station 14 is adapted to break the back portion 69 of the blade 66 so as to release a cutting member 124…; Kemos, pg. 19, lines 14-17, “The resulting cutting members 124 are displaced to a stacking station 15 (see Fig. 17) where they are stacked in a bayonet 78 for use in a razor head assembly process for the manufacture of a razor head”).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of JP 2019150580 A by Leon.
Regarding claim 33, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 30 above. Furthermore, Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette does not explicitly disclose simultaneously securing the blades.
Leon, however, does teach wherein assembling the first blade and the second blade further comprises stacking the first blade and the second blade (Leon, Claim 11, “A shaving razor comprising… a plurality of razor blades; Leon, Fig. 2, razor blades 130), and securing the first blade and the second blade to the guard simultaneously (Leon, Fig. 1, base 140; Leon, para. 19, “blade guard 340 which is integrally molded as part of base 140”; para. 23, “the cover, base, and bridge are each integrally molded; para. 26, “multiple blade assemblies may be attached to the bridge simultaneously… placing the bridge over the set of assemblies will be performed automatically in one step”).
For further clarification, Leon teaches that the guard, base, cover, and bridge are all integrally molded. Therefore, when simultaneously securing the blades to the bridge, it would also be simultaneously securing the blades to the guard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to secure the blades of Gilder et al. simultaneously as taught by Leon in order to increase manufacturing efficiency (Leon, para. 25, “by eliminating heat processes such as welding, fusing, etc., manufacturing speeds are increased at reduced costs”; para. 26, “Again, no thermal process is required. In some embodiments, it is contemplated that multiple blade assembles may be attached to the bridge simultaneously”).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of WO 2014048460 A1 by Davos et al..
Regarding claim 34, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 30 above. Furthermore, Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette does not explicitly disclose securing the blades consecutively.
Davos et al., however, does teach that wherein assembling the first blade and the second blade further comprises providing the first blade and the second blade to the guard by securing the first blade to the guard after the second blade is secured to the guard (Davos et al., pg. 6, lines 12-19, “The guard is moved to a first cutting member-placing station 76. Here, 3 cutting member-placing stations 76, 77, 78 are used, the one after the other along the assembly path…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to secure the blades of Gilder et al. consecutively as taught by Davos as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Gilder et al.’s blades being secured in the order of Davos et al. in order for assembling the razor head).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2354474 A by Gilder et al. in view of US 7131202 B2 by Fitzgerald et al., WO 2004112986 A1 by Santhagens, KR 20170023059 A by Chang et al., and EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al. as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of EP 3689559 A1 by Ampatis et al..
Regarding claim 35, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16. Furthermore, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette does not explicitly disclose a distance between about 1 μm and about 100 μm.
Ampatis et al., however, does teach the cutting edge of the first blade is recessed from the shaving surface the guard a distance between about 1 μm and about 100 μm (Ampatis et al., para. 39, lines 49-51, “thus a range of the cutting edge exposure may be between -80 m to +80 m and more specifically between -45 μm to +45 μm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to have the cutting edge of Gilder et al. be positioned as taught by Ampatis et al. in order for a less aggressive shave to help prevent injury (Ampatis et al., para. 39, lines 54-58, “when the cutting edge exposure is negative relatively to the support plane S, a less aggressive shave is achieved. This is because the front end 120c of the blade support helps protect the shaving surface, e.g. skin”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a distance between about 1 μm and about 100 μm, recognizing that the distance is directly correlated with the shaving performance, 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 of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 36, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang/Brette combination is as described in the rejection of claim 16. Furthermore, the Gilder/Fitzgerald/Santhagens/Chang does not explicitly disclose a distance between about 1 μm and about 100 μm.
Ampatis et al., however, does teach the cutting edge of the first blade protrudes from the shaving surface at a distance between about 1 μm and about 100 μm (Ampatis et al., para. 39, lines 49-51, “thus a range of the cutting edge exposure may be between -80 m to +80 m and more specifically between -45 μm to +45 μm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of inventio to have the cutting edge of Gilder et al. be positioned relative to the guard as taught by Ampatis et al. for a closer and smoother shave (Ampatis et al., col. 6, para. 39, lines 5-7, “when the cutting edge exposure is positive relative to the support plane S, closeness and glideness is improved”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a distance between about 1 μm and about 100 μm, recognizing that the distance is directly correlated with the shaving performance, 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 of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on August 28, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under header Section 103 Rejections beginning on page 8 have been considered. Applicant argues that with the newly introduced claim limitation “… an overhang length of the first blade ranges from 0.91 to 1 mm…,” the combination of prior art presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 30, 2025 does not teach all the claim limitations. However, as necessitated by the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of EP 3771533 A1 by Brette et al.. Therefore, claim 16 and all its dependent claims are subsequently rejected, as detailed in the rejections above.
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 DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724