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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 40 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention in the Final Action dated 1/23/26, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was by original presentation, and applicant has not timely made any traversal of the restriction, which is therefore made final.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Final Rejection Maintained / Incorporated by Reference
All of the rejections of record from the Final rejection dated 1/23/2026 are maintained, and hereby incorporated by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on a declaration which has been considered in full.
The alleged invention is an adjustment to the sizes of gaps on shaving razors. The specific dimensions claimed, and the fact that they were known to impact shaving comfort and flow-through has been elaborately and completely shown in the record. The record has been well developed. The declaration does not persuade examiner that a patent should issue on the claims presented, and the rejections of record are therefore maintained.
See MPEP 716 generally. Evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties, such as superiority in a property the claimed compound shares with the prior art, can rebut prima facie obviousness. "Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties . . . can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." No set number of examples of superiority is required. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987). (MPEP 716.02(a)(II))
However, The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (716.02(b) (I)).
Applicant’s allegation of patentability is that because the Gilder reference and Santhagans reference use different types of support structures—the dimensions of each are not related to each other, and they cannot be used together in a single rejection. See Rem. P 10 citing Decl. 20 “one of ordinary skill ….would not have extracted a clearance value from Santhagens…and apply the value to Gilder’s …construction, because the dimensional relationship simply does not translate.” There is no persuasive factual basis that the dimension would not be applicable in both contexts. In both Gilder and Santhagens, those of ordinary skill (based on the disclosure of those two references, and the other cited and applied references, taken as a whole, as evidence of the level of ordinary skill) would understand that the gap between blade tips sets (more or less) features of shaving comfort—since they are skin engagement points, and in both references, the minimum gap between the blade structure as a whole impacts the flow-through rate because that’s how fluid flow works-- a narrower or wider gap decreases or increases the flow volume possible because of how nozzles and fluids interact. For that reason, the references are both relevant to the question of what dimensions those of ordinary skill would know to adjust.
Applicant alleges that achieving the ‘[e]nter blade clearance of .25-0.55mm for Gilder….require[s] a[] different set of …manufacturing considerations.” (Rem. P 12 line 11+). Perhaps. But that is not evidence of non-patentability of the present claims. The art cited shows the ability (technologically) of setting the currently claimed gap, and specifically highlights that through-flow based on the dimensions being discussed is a known variable which is studied and selected for by those of ordinary skill. The allegation that doing so would mean making the device by a different (also known method) is not persuasive that the combination of features is improper as to the prima facie obviousness of the pending claims.
Applicant alleges (Rem 12, Decl. para 25, that interblade clearance is ‘critical’ “as compared to the measurements disclosed in Gilder and Santhagens. This does not make sense. Gilder, Santhagens, and the other cited art makes clear that the through-flow, based on the size of the gap is a known variable (See, e.g. Figure 3 of Gilder—and note that the graph is comparing wash through to blade spacing—and inevitably, the blade spacing relates (under the tip) to whatever overall gaps are present. This is why it is relevant to look to the minimum clearance, whatever structure is under or around the blade—the point to those of ordinary skill is the amount of blockages – minima in clearance—will impact flow through; and Gilder suggests looking at flow through and therefore adjusting it to the will of the designer.
Applicant alleges that experimental data which shows consistent blade spacing, but different gap minima between the underside portions of the blades and has the result of different flow through would support a conclusion of non-obviousness. This is not persuasive. A – Applicant bears the burden of proof and persuasion in this context (See 716 MPEP supra and in general).
Applicant declaration at para 23-25 describes the test and notes not what the second shaving head has at its inter-blade clearance was (only that it was “less than” the first). This is a huge omission in evaluating whether the change in flow was unexpected. Second, clearly this is the expected result… if you pinch off the nozzle by narrowing a gap between the understructures (reducing the overall cross section through which fluid is permitted to flow) the expected result is that the pinch will reduce flow rate under the same pressure (cetaris paribus conditions).
The conclusion of the test is therefore—making a gap bigger results in more flow. This is not persuasive of unexpected results, and does not disturb the conclusions of the previous action—that each size alleged by applicant’s claims to be patentable finds clear antecedent in the prior art, and the reasons for adjusting both blade span and minima of the gap between whatever structure undergirds the blade.
Response to Affidavit Declaration 1.132 sub’d 4/22/26 by Christos Ampatis.
Regarding para 1, 2, no comment necessary.
Regarding para 3—declarant is an employee of applicant, and therefore due consideration to the assertions is given.
Regarding para 4-13, no comment is necessary, the assertions are considered admitted.
Regarding para 14—the statement is conclusory and lacks any factual basis.
Regarding para 15-16 the description of the differences of Santhagens and Gilder are not persuasive of any shortcoming of the rejection of record. Being different is not sufficient nor here is of any impact in determining whether both references are relevant to the obviousness of the pending claims.
Para 17 alludes to an issue of law—whether Santhagens teaches away from combination, and concludes that being directed towards solving a problem of blade on carrier systems means the reference is not applicable. This is not persuasive. While a combination of many structures in them selves might not be a valid combination, the teachings from both references about the sizes of the blade gap and the gap of the underlying structure are both clearly relevant to the present claims, and therefore the conclusion of declarant that the Santhagens reference would not be relevant is not a persuasive argument.
Para 18-23 represent conclusions that because of the different shapes of the devices, to functionally combine them would require different methods. Declaration (ibid) does not demonstrate the technical infeasibility of using different methods—and the question of what method is used to make a razor is not relevant otherwise to the pending claims which assert ownership of certain sizes of gaps, where the gaps themselves and the size of the gaps are well shown in the relevant art, as is the reason for adjusting the size, discussed with respect to applicant remarks *(supra).
Para 24-27 discuss testing (without showing extensive data, or without the compete actual dimensions of the structures being tested) and are remarked above as lacking persuasion under the response to argument section.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights