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
The amendment filed 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 6, 7, and 9-11 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 12-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1, 3-5, 8, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorco Co., LTD. (US 11220014 B2; hereinafter referred to as Dorco) in view of The Gillette Company (EP 2823942 A1; hereinafter referred to as Gillette) and BIC-Violex S.A. (EP 3771533 A1; hereinafter BIC-Violex).
Regarding claim 1, Dorco teaches a wet shaving cartridge (Fig. 1, Razor Cartridge 100)
comprising: a housing (Fig. 1, Blade Housing 8) including a guard (Fig. 1, Front Guard 2), a cap
(Fig. 1, Rear Cap 4), and a pair of side walls (Fig. 1, paddle-shaped wall of Housing 8
immediately facing the viewer, as well as the wall directly opposite to it on the other side of the
Blades 10a-10e) extending between the guard and the cap, an open well (Fig. 2, recess in
Housing 8 where Blades 10a-10e reside) being bounded by the guard, the cap, and the side walls,
wherein, a plurality of blade retention members (Fig. 2, Seating Projections 9a-9e) are defined on interior portions of the side walls; and, a plurality of blades (Fig. 2, Blades 10a-10e) arranged in
parallel within the well to extend between the blade retention members of the side walls, the
blades each including a first straight section (Fig. 3A, Base 13), a second straight section (Fig.
3A, Edge Portion 11), and a third curved section (Fig. 3A, Bent Portion 12) extending between
the first and second straight sections, the first straight section having opposing ends adjacent to at
least one of the blade retention members of each of the side walls (Fig. 3A, Base 13 and Fig. 2,
Blades 10a-10; examiner interprets that in Fig. 2 the base portion of each Blade is adjacent to at
least one Seating Projection), a free edge of the second straight section defining a cutting edge
(Fig. 3A, Edge Portion 11 and Tip Edge 15), wherein a first blade (Fig. 14, Blade 10a) is located adjacentmost to the guard (Fig. 14, Front Guard 2), a second blade (Fig. 14, Blade 10b) is located adjacent to the first blade, a third blade (Fig. 14, Blade 10c) is located adjacent to the second blade, and a fourth blade (Fig. 14, Blade 10d) is located adjacent to the third blade, wherein a first span (Fig. 14, Span sa) is defined between the first blade and the second blade, a second span (Fig. 14, Span sb) is defined between the second blade and the third blade, and a third span (Fig. 14, Span sc) is defined between the third blade and the fourth blade, wherein the first blade (Fig. 7, Blade 10a) has negative exposure (Fig. 7, examiner interprets that with respect to Contact Plane CP, Blade 10a has negative exposure), and wherein the fourth blade (Fig. 7, Blade 10d) has positive exposure (Fig. 7, examiner interprets that with respect to Contact Plane CP, Blade 10d has positive exposure).
Dorco fails to teach wherein the blades have a constant cross-sectional thickness in the
range of 0.006 inches, and wherein the first span is greater than the second span, and the second span is greater than the third span.
However, Gillette teaches a blade (Fig. 5) having a constant cross-sectional thickness
(Fig. 5, Thickness T) in the range of 0.05 mm to about 0.15 mm (Gillette, [0023]). Gillette does
not explicitly disclose a thickness of 0.006 inches. Gillette discloses that the thickness of the
blade needs to be optimized to withstand typical forces experienced during shaving (Gillette,
[0023]). Further, it appears that one or ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in modifying the Gillette device to have a thickness of 0.006 inches, as it
involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the device of Gillette by making the thickness of the blade be 0.006 in as a matter of
routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the razor blade of Dorco to comprise a thickness of about 0.006 inches as taught
by Gillette; Gillette identifies the claimed range of thickness of the razor blade as known in the
art and beneficial to withstand typical forces experienced during shaving (Gillette, [0023]).
The combination of Dorco and Gillette fails to teach wherein the blades are each unitarily
formed from a single metal blank. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its
method of production. Since the cross-sectional thickness of the claim is the same as or obvious
from a thickness of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was
made by an undisclosed and potentially different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227
USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it would have been obvious to try forming the razor
blades from a single metal blank to one of ordinary skill in the art having problems with the
machinability of razor blades. One of ordinary skill would have been able to narrow the group of
potential manufacturing methods to a group of 2: forming the razor blades from a single metal
blank, or forming each razor blade from a different metal blank. This would be an acceptable
number to form "a reasonable expectation of success." In other words, only a low level of
experimentation is required to arrive at the claimed invention.
Additionally, BIC-Violex teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 6, wherein the first span (Fig. 7b, Inter-blade Span 40) is greater than the second span (Fig. 7b, Inter-blade Span 41;
[0054]), and the second span is greater than the third span (Fig. 7b, Inter-blade Span 42; [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the first, second, and third span of the combination of Dorco and Gillette such
that the first span is greater than the second span, and the second span is greater than the third
span as taught by BIC-Violex as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the
first span being greater than the second span, and the second span being greater than the first
span as taught by BIC-Violex.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dorco and Gillette is described in claim 1 above.
Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 1, wherein each of the blade
retention members (Fig. 2, Seating Projections 9a-9e) includes a curved free end contoured to the
third curved section of an adjacent blade (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that the top end of each
Seating Projections 9a-9e is curved and contoured to the curved portion of the respective Blade
10a-10e that it contacts).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dorco and Gillette is described in claim 1 above.
The combination of Dorco and Gillette fails to teach wherein the third curved section of
each of the plurality of blades has a radius of .050 inches.
However, Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 1, wherein the third
curved section of each of the plurality of blades has a radius (Fig. 3A, Radius R) of 0.45 mm to
0.9 mm (Col 5, lines 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the radius of the third curved section of Dorco to be 0.05 inches as applicant
appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed
invention, [0026]) and since it has been held that when "the proportions are so close that prima
facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties" a prima facie
case of obviousness exists. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227
USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it is generally available knowledge to one skilled in
the art that increasing the bend radius smooths the degree of bending and results in a lower
possibility of cracks occurring during the bending process. Hence, there existed motivation to
modify the prior art and there existed a reasonable expectation of success upon modifying the
prior art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dorco and Gillette is described in claim 1 above.
The combination of Dorco and Gillette fails to teach wherein the third curved section of
each of the plurality of blades has a radius of .070 inches.
However, Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 1, wherein the third
curved section of each of the plurality of blades has a radius (Fig. 3A, Radius R) of 0.45 mm to
0.9 mm (Col 5, lines 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the radius of the third curved section of Dorco to be 0.07 inches as applicant
appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed
invention, [0026]) and since it has been held that when "the proportions are so close that prima
facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties" a prima facie
case of obviousness exists. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227
USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it is generally available knowledge to one skilled in
the art that increasing the bend radius smooths the degree of bending and results in a lower
possibility of cracks occurring during the bending process. Hence, there existed motivation to
modify the prior art and there existed a reasonable expectation of success upon modifying the
prior art.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in claim 1 above.
The existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach the wet
shaving cartridge of claim 7, wherein the difference between the first span and the second span is
equal to the difference between the second span and the third span.
However, BIC-Violex further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 7, wherein the
difference ([0119] and [0120], Inter-blade Span 40 is 1.85 mm and Inter-blade Span 41 is 1.70
mm, for a difference of 0.15 mm) between the first span (Fig. 7b, Inter-blade Span 40) and the
second span (Fig. 7b, Inter-blade Span 41) is equal to the difference ([0120] and [0121], Inter-
blade Span 41 is 1.70 mm and Inter-blade Span 42 is 1.55 mm, for a difference of 0.15 mm
which is equal to the difference between the first span and second span) between the second span
and the third span (Fig. 7b, Inter-blade Span 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the first, second, and third inter-blade spans of the existing combination of
Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex such that the difference between the first span and the second
span is equal to the difference between the second span and the third span as taught by BIC-
Violex as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is that the difference
between the first span and the second span is equal to the difference between the second span
and the third span as taught by BIC-Violex.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dorco and Gillette is described in claim 1
above.
Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 1, wherein, each of the blades
(Fig. 2, Blades 10a-10e) including an interior face (Fig. 2, the leftmost face of each blade where
the bend is in contact with a Seating Protrusion and which also faces the Front Guard), about which the respective blade is bent, and an exterior face (Fig. 2, the rightmost face of each blade
opposite to the interior face and generally facing the Rear Cap) opposite the interior face, the
interior face generally facing in the direction of the guard (Fig. 2, Front Guard 2).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in
claim 1 above, and includes a wet shaving cartridge, formed in accordance with claim 1.
The existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach a shaving
razor cartridge comprising: a handle; and, a wet shaving cartridge, formed in accordance with
claim 1, mounted to the handle.
However, BIC-Violex further teaches a handle (Fig. 1, Handle 2); and, a wet shaving
cartridge (Fig. 1, Razor Cartridge 20), mounted to the handle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the wet shaving cartridge of the existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and
BIC-Violex such that it is mounted to a handle as taught by BIC-Violex. Having a handle
mounted to the wet shaving cartridge provides the benefit of allowing the user to maneuver than
the razor cartridge such that the blades can remove unwanted hair (BIC-Violex, [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in
claim 17 above.
The existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach the shaving
razor of claim 17, wherein the wet shaving cartridge is fixedly mounted to the handle.
However, BIC-Violex further teaches the shaving razor of claim 17, wherein the wet
shaving cartridge (Fig. 1, Razor Cartridge 20) is fixedly mounted ([0027]; examiner interprets
that the handle being integrally connected to the razor cartridge is the same as being fixedly
mounted) to the handle (Fig. 1, Handle 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the wet shaving cartridge of the existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and
BIC-Violex such that it is fixedly mounted to the handle as taught by BIC-Violex as a matter of
combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP
2143). In this case, the predictable result is the wet shaving cartridge being fixedly mounted to
the handle as taught by BIC-Violex.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in
claim 17 above.
The existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach the shaving
razor of claim 17, wherein the wet shaving cartridge is removably mounted to the handle.
However, BIC-Violex further teaches the shaving razor of claim 17, wherein the wet
shaving cartridge (Fig. 1, Razor Cartridge 20) is removably mounted ([0028]) to the handle (Fig.
1, Handle 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the wet shaving cartridge of the existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and
BIC-Violex such that it is removably mounted to the handle as taught by BIC-Violex as a matter
of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see
MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the wet shaving cartridge being removably
mounted to the handle as taught by BIC-Violex.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in claim 17 above.
The existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach the shaving
razor of claims 17, wherein the wet shaving cartridge is pivotally mountable to the handle.
However, BIC-Violex further teaches the shaving razor of claims 17, wherein the wet
shaving cartridge (Fig. 1, Razor Cartridge 20) is pivotally mountable ([0026]) to the handle (Fig.
1, Handle 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the wet shaving cartridge of the existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, and
BIC-Violex such that it is pivotably mountable to the handle as taught by BIC-Violex. Doing so
provides the benefit of allowing the user to adapt to contours of the body (BIC-Violex, [0026]).
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Dorco Co., LTD. (US 11220014 B2; hereinafter referred to as Dorco) in view of The Gillette
Company (EP 2823942 A1; hereinafter referred to as Gillette) and BIC-Violex S.A. (EP 3771533 A1; hereinafter BIC-Violex) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kenneth James Skrobis (US 20210323184 A1; hereinafter referred to as Skrobis).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in claim 1 above.
The combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach the wet shaving cartridge of claim 1, wherein, for each of the blades, the cutting edge being asymmetric, defined by facets on opposing faces of the blade of different widths.
However, Skrobis teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 1, wherein, for each of the
blades (Fig. 19, Blade Body 130’), the cutting edge (Fig. 19, Tip 140’) being asymmetric,
defined by facets on opposing faces of the blade (Fig. 19, Second Facet 138B’ and Third Facet
138C’) of different widths ([0032], the Second Facet is located closer to Split Line SL128 than
the Third Facet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the cutting edge of the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex to be asymmetric and have facets on opposing faces of the blade of different widths as taught by Skrobis as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the cutting edge being asymmetric and having facets on opposing faces of the blade of different widths as taught by Skrobis.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex is described in claim 13 above.
Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 13, wherein, for each of the
blades (Fig. 3A, Razor Blade 10), a first facet (Fig. 3A, right side of part of Edge Portion 11
which tapers to Tip Edge 15) being defined on the exterior face along the free edge (Fig. 3A, Tip
Edge 15), a second facet (Fig. 3A, left side of part of Edge Portion 11 which tapers to Tip Edge
15) being defined on the interior face along the free edge, the first and second facets being
tapered to converge to define the cutting edge.
The combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex fails to teach the width of the second facet, as measured perpendicularly away from the free edge, being greater than the width of the first facet, as measured perpendicularly away from the free edge.
However, Skrobis teaches the width of the second facet (Fig. 19, Third Facet 138C’), as
measured perpendicularly away from the free edge (Fig. 19, Tip 140’), being greater than the
width of the first facet (Fig. 19, Second Facet 138B’), as measured perpendicularly away from
the free edge ([0032], the Second Facet is located closer to Split Line SL128 than the Third
Facet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the cutting edge of the combination of Dorco, Gillette, and BIC-Violex such that the width of the second facet, as measured perpendicularly away from the free edge, being greater than the width of the first facet, as measured perpendicularly away from the free edge as taught by Skrobis as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the width of the second facet, as measured perpendicularly away from the free edge, being greater than the width of the first facet.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, BIC-Violex and Skrobis is described in claim 14 above.
Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 14, wherein, for each of the
blades, the exterior face (Fig. 3A, the rightmost face of each blade opposite to the interior face
and generally facing the Rear Cap) includes a first planar portion (Fig. 3A, right side of part of
edge portion 11 which does not taper to Tip Edge 15) adjacent to the first facet (Fig. 3A, right
side of part of Edge Portion 11 which tapers to Tip Edge 15), the first planar portion lying in a
first plane (Fig. 3A, plane defined by right side of part of edge portion 11 which does not taper to
Tip Edge 15), wherein the interior face (Fig. 3A, the leftmost face of each blade where the bend
is in contact with a Seating Protrusion and which also faces the Front Guard) includes a second
planar portion (Fig. 3A, left side of part of edge portion 11 which does not taper to edge 15)
adjacent to the second facet (Fig. 3A, left side of part of Edge Portion 11 which tapers to Tip
Edge 15), the second planar portion lying in a second plane (Fig. 3A, plane defined by left side
of part of Edge Portion 11 which tapers to Tip Edge 15), and wherein the free edge (Fig. 3A, Tip
Edge 15) is generally parallel to both the first and second planes.
The existing combination of Dorco, Gillette, BIC-Violex and Skrobis fails to teach the free edge being spaced closer to the first plane than the second plane.
However, Skrobis further teaches the free edge (Fig. 19, Tip 140’) being spaced closer to the first plane (Fig. 19, plane defined by Second Portion 130B’) than the second plane (Fig. 19,
plane defined by First Portion 130A’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the free edge of Dorco, Gillette, BIC-Violex and Skrobis such that the free edge is spaced closer to the first plane than the second plane as taught by Skrobis as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the free edge being spaced closer to the first plane than the second plane as taught by Skrobis.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dorco, Gillette, BIC-Violex and Skrobis is described in claim 14 above.
Dorco further teaches the wet shaving cartridge of claim 14, wherein a first of the blades
(Fig. 2, Razor Blade 10a) is located adjacent to a second of the blades (Fig. 2, Razor Blade 10b)
so that a flow-through channel (Fig. 2, the space between the back of the Bent Portion 12 of
Razor Blade 10a and the front of the Edge Portion 11 of Razor Blade 10b) is defined between the
exterior face (Fig. 2, the rightmost face of each blade opposite to the interior face and generally
facing the Rear Cap) of the first blade and the interior face (Fig. 2, the leftmost face of each
blade where the bend is in contact with a Seating Protrusion and which also faces the Front
Guard) of the second blade, and wherein the narrowest spacing between the exterior face of the
first blade and the interior face of the second blade, along the flow-through channel, coincides
with the second facet (Fig. 3A, left side of part of Edge Portion 11 which tapers to Tip Edge 15)
of the second blade (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that the shortest distance between Razor Blade
10a and Razor Blade 10b occurs between the exterior face of 10a and the second facet of 10b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kim et al. cannot be modified by Warrick to teach blades of a same thickness having both positive and negative exposure as Kim discloses that thick blades are positively exposed and thin blades are negatively exposed, and does not show blades of the same thickness having both positive and negative exposure. While Kim does generally show that thin blades are negatively exposed and thick blades are positively exposed, this is due to the fact that the dimensions of a thin blade create lower cutting forces causing irritation during shaving if positively exposed (Col. 7 lines 60-67 and Col. 8 lines 1-3). Kim discloses that thick blades “may” be positively exposed (Col. 7 lines 60-67 and Col. 8 lines 1-3), but creates no rule or reason which restricts them to solely being positively exposed. Kim characterizes a thick blade of a blade in the region of 5.7 micrometers to 6.9 micrometers in thickness (Col. 7, lines 45-55). The blades of the present invention therefore fall into the category of a thick blade, and as implied by Kim, “may” be positively exposed, or negatively as nothing prevents them from doing so even though such is an arrangement is not shown by Kim. Therefore, a modification so that some thick blades are negatively exposed with Warrick does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, nor does it change the principle operation of effective and comfortable shaving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724