DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 12 and 14 were cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruno (US 20090293281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bruno teaches a shaving razor cartridge (Figure 1A), comprising:
a blade member (18, 20, 22, 23);
a housing (12) having a blade platform (72, see Figure 74), the blade platform comprising:
a first blade retention member (bottom left 74 in Figure 6) having a front wall with a first lateral end, a second lateral end (top half of the rod, with lateral ends at the three and nine o’clock positions), and only one blade support region (center point of the top half circle shape of the rod, i.e. at noon position) between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of the front wall of the first blade retention member (see Figure 6); and
a second blade retention member (2nd 74 counting from bottom left in Figure 6) having a front wall and a rear wall (top half circle and bottom half circle), a first lateral end, a second lateral end (lateral ends at the three and nine o’clock positions), and only one blade support region (center point of the top half circle shape of the rod, i.e. at six o’clock position) between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of the rear wall of the second blade retention member (see Figure 6), and the front wall of the second blade retention member having only one blade support region (center point of the top half circle shape of the rod, i.e. at noon position) between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of the rear front wall of the second blade retention member (see Figure 6), wherein the rear wall of the second blade retention member overlaps (overlaps in the same vertical line) and is non-parallel relative to the front wall of the first blade retention member along a vertical direction extending perpendicular to a length of the blade member (since the distance of the half circle only have the same distance at one vertical point, the top half circle of the front wall of the first blade retention member is not parallel to the bottom half circle of the rear wall of the second blade retention member see Figure 1A and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Bruno teaches the blade member (18) positioned between the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member and the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Bruno teaches one or more clips (26) configured to retain the blade member in an up and down direction within the housing (see Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Bruno teaches the blade member has a first surface contacting the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member (top surface of 18, see Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 5, Bruno teaches the blade member has a second surface contacting the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member (bottom surface of 16, see Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 15, Bruno teaches the first lateral end of the first blade retention member and the first lateral end of the second blade retention member are spaced apart by a first vertical distance (distance at the nine o’clock positions, see Figure 6), the second lateral end of the first blade retention member and the second lateral end of the second blade retention member are spaced apart by a second vertical distance (distance at the three o’clock positions, see Figure 6), and the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member and the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member are spaced apart by a third vertical distance (distance at center, noon to six o’clock position, see Figure 6) that is less than the first vertical distance (see Figure 6).
Claims 1-7, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 20190381681 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a shaving razor cartridge (see annotated Figure 2), comprising:
a blade member (20);
a housing (30) having a blade platform (31), the blade platform comprising:
a first blade retention member (top 31, see annotated Figure 2) having a front wall (see annotated Figure 2) with a first lateral end (left end of front wall in annotated Figure 2), a second lateral end (right end of front wall, see annotated Figure 2) and only one blade support region (at 2nd wall, see annotated Figure 2) between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of the front wall of the first blade retention member (see annotated Figure 2) ; and
a second blade retention member (bottom 31, see annotated Figure 2) having a front wall (see annotated Figure 2) and a rear wall (see annotated Figure 2), the rear wall facing the front wall of the first blade retention member (see annotated Figure 2) and having a first lateral end (left end of rear wall, see annotated Figure 2), a second lateral end (right end of rear wall, see annotated Figure 2), and only one blade support region between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of the rear wall of the second blade retention member (at 2nd wall, see annotated Figure 2), and the front wall of the second blade retention member having only one blade support region between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of the front wall of the second blade retention member (see annotated Figure 2), wherein the rear wall of the second blade retention member overlaps and is non-parallel relative (in this case since the front/rear walls are non linear shaped and not ever distance in cut in the vertical direction is equal distance, at least at the dotted line the distance is different, see zoom in annotated Figure 2) to the front wall of the first blade retention member along a vertical direction extending perpendicular to a length of the blade member (up and down direction in Figure 2 from 32 to 32, see annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
907
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the blade member (20) positioned between the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member and the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches one or more clips (40) configured to retain the blade member in an up and down direction within the housing (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the blade member has a first surface contacting the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the blade member has a second surface contacting the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the front wall of the first blade retention member is formed by at least a first wall and a second wall, the second wall defining the only one blade support region, the first wall extending along a plane from the second wall at an obtuse angle from the second wall to the first lateral end (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the rear wall of the second blade retention member is formed by at least a first wall and a second wall, the second wall defining the only one blade support region, the first wall extending along a plane from the second wall at an obtuse angle from the second wall to the second lateral end (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches the first lateral end of the first blade retention member and the first lateral end of the second blade retention member are spaced apart by a first vertical distance (see zoomed annotated Figure 2), the second lateral end of the first blade retention member and the second lateral end of the second blade retention member are spaced apart by a second vertical distance (see zoomed annotated Figure 2), and the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member and the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member are spaced apart by a third vertical distance (between the tips, see zoomed annotated Figure 2) that is less than the first vertical distance (see zoomed annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches the third vertical distance is less than the second vertical distance (see zoomed annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches the only one blade support region of the first blade retention member and the only one blade support region of the second blade retention member are offset from each other such that they do not overlap along the vertical direction (see both 2nd wall offset from each other, see annotated Figure 2).
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno (US 20090293281 A1).
Regarding claims 17-19, Bruno teaches unknown values for the first vertical distance, the second vertical distance and the third vertical distance (see Figure 6).
Bruno fails to teach the first vertical distance is 0.40 mm to 1.80 mm, the second vertical distance is 0.40 mm to 1.80 mm and the third vertical distance is 0.075 mm to 0.40 mm.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the first, second and third distances, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Bruno’s blade retainer member to have the specific three distances set forth in the claim based on the desired size of the blade retention members of the end user for the first and second distances and the desired size blade to accommodate of the end user for the third distance.
Claims 8-11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190381681 A1).
Regarding claims 8-10, Park teaches a unknown ratio of a contact length of at least one of the only one blade support regions to an overall length of a corresponding blade retention member
Park fails to teach the ratio is 1:3 to 1:10 (as required by claim 8), or is 1:3 to 1:5 (as required by claim 9), or is 1:10 (as required by claim 10).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific ratio of 1:3 to 1:10 (as required by claim 8), 1:3 to 1:5 (as required by claim 9), or 1:10 (as required by claim 10), the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Park’s blade retainer member to have the ratio set forth in the claim based on the support for the blades desired by the end user.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches the overall length of the corresponding blade retention member is at unknown value (see annotated Figure 2).
Park fails to teach an overall length is 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm (as required by claim 11)
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of an overall length is 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Park’s blade retainer member to have the overall length set forth in the claim based on the support for the blades desired by the end user.
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the a contact length of at least one of the only one blade support regions at unknown value (see annotated Figure 2).
Park fails to teach a contact length is 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm (as required by claim 13).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of a contact length is 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm, courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Park’s blade retainer member to have the contact length set forth in the claim based on the desired support for the blades desired by the end user.
Regarding claims 17-19, Park teaches unknown values for the first vertical distance, the second vertical distance and the third vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3).
Bruno fails to teach the first vertical distance is 0.40 mm to 1.80 mm, the second vertical distance is 0.40 mm to 1.80 mm and the third vertical distance is 0.075 mm to 0.40 mm.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific size of the first, second and third distances, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Park’s blade retainer member to have the specific three distances set forth in the claim based on the desired size of the blade retention members of the end user for the first and second distances and the desired size blade to accommodate of the end user for the third distance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Park fails to teach “wherein the rear wall of the second blade retention member overlaps and is non-parallel relative to the front wall of the first blade retention member along a vertical direction extending perpendicular to a length of the blade member”. The examiner disagrees and notes Park teaches in this case since the front/rear walls are nonlinear shaped and not ever distance in cut in the vertical direction is equal distance, at least at the dotted line the distance is different, see zoom in annotated Figure 2, therefore the non-parallel limitation is met.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/02/2026
Prosecution Insights