DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 15-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 4 and 8-14 were cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
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, 5-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lembke (US 20040168323 A1) in view of Guay (US 20060237021 A1), Solomennikov (US 20110146081 A1) and Brormann (US 20120311864 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lembke teaches a razor cartridge (14, paragraph 0029), comprising:
a frame (assembly of 18, 28 and 32, see Figure 2) with a cap side (examiner notes that a cap side is not the same as a cap, thus the top side of 14 meets the claimed limitation, see Figure 4) and a guard side (examiner notes that a guard side is not the same as a guard, thus the bottom side of 14 meets the claimed limitation, see Figure 4) being generally parallel to one another (see Figure 1), a first side (left side of 14, see Figure 4) connecting the cap side and the guard side and a second side (right side of 14, see Figure 4) connecting the cap side and the guard side, the first side and the second side generally parallel to one another (see Figure 1-4), the cap side and guard side being generally perpendicular to the first side and the second side (see Figures 1-4);
a first razor blade, a second razor blade and a third razor blade (30, bottom being the first up to third) positioned in the frame, each with sharpened edges facing at top of the frame (left side of Figure 1), the first razor blade, the second razor blade and the third razor blade positioned in the frame generally parallel to and across substantially most of a length of the cap side and guard side (See Figure 2), and positioned between the first side and the second side (see Figure 4),
wherein each of the first/second/third razor blades are positioned in the frame at a first/second/third blade tilt angle between unknown values (see Figures 7 and 9) measured from a line drawn across the top of the frame from the cap side and the guard side (see Figures 7-9), the first blade angle, the second blade angle and the third blade tilt angle being different (at least in the position of Figures 7 and 9).
Lembke fails to teach a first/second/third blade tilt angle between 12 degrees and 30 degrees, the first razor blade having a cant angle when measured from the first side and second side of the frame between 1 and 3 degrees, wherein the first razor blade cant angle is not perpendicular to the first side and second side of the frame; the second razor blade having a cant angle when measured from the first side and second side of the frame between 1 and 3 degrees, wherein the second razor blade cant angle is not perpendicular to the first side and second side of the frame and wherein the first razor blade cant angle being different from the second razor blade cant angle; the third razor blade having a cant angle when measured from the first side and second side of the frame between 1 and 3 degrees, wherein the third razor blade cant angle is not perpendicular to the first side and second side of the frame and wherein the first razor blade cant angle being different from the third razor blade cant angle and different from the second razor blade cant angle.
Guay teaches that razor blade placed at blade angle between 15 degrees and 30 degrees (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lembke to have the blade angle to be between 15 degrees and 30 degrees, as taught by Guay, in order to reduce trauma to the skin (paragraph 0033). Since 15-30 degrees is between 12-30 degrees of the claimed limitation, the resulting device of Lembke meets the claimed limitation.
Solomennikov teaches a razor cartridge with two or more blades (3, 4 and other blade not shown to make more than two total blades and less than four preferably with different set angle in the system, abstract), wherein the first, second and third razor blades are positioned such that each blade is set at a different angle between 75 to 80 degrees (which is about 10-15 degrees in the way the applicant is measuring, abstract).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Lembke to change the shaving set angle of each of the first, second and third blades to have them be set at a different angle, as taught by Solomennikov, in order to increase the efficiency and ease of shaving of the razor blade (abstract of Solomennikov).
Brormann teaches the a razor cartridge (see Figure 12) with multiple blades (23) at an angle beta between 0.1 to 25 degrees (see paragraph 0031-0032 and 0071).
As disclosed by Brormann, it is known in the art to have the claimed range of 1-3 degrees (see paragraph 0071 of Brormann), Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Lembke to change the shaving set angle of each of the first, second and third blades to have them be set at a different angle between 1-3 degrees, as taught by Brormann, in order to increase the cutting result and life of the blade (abstract of Brormann).
The resulting device of modified Lembke teaches the first razor blade having a cant angle when measured from the first side and second side of the frame between 1 and 3 degrees (as modified by Brormann, angle between 1-3 degrees, for example 1 degrees for the modified first blade), wherein the first razor blade cant angle is not perpendicular to the first side and second side of the frame (see Figure 1 of Solomennikov); the second razor blade having a cant angle when measured from the first side and second side of the frame between 1 and 3 degrees (as modified by Brormann, angle between 1-3 degrees, for example 2 degrees for the modified second blade), wherein the second razor blade cant angle is not perpendicular to the first side and second side of the frame and wherein the first razor blade cant angle being different from the second razor blade cant angle (the first, second and third razor blades are positioned such that each blade is set at a different angle, abstract of Solomennikov, while using the range of Brormann); the third razor blade having a cant angle when measured from the first side and second side of the frame between 1 and 3 degrees (as modified by Brormann, angle between 1-3 degrees, for example 3 degrees for the modified third blade), wherein the third razor blade cant angle is not perpendicular to the first side and second side of the frame and wherein the first razor blade cant angle being different from the third razor blade cant angle and different from the second razor blade cant angle (the first, second and third razor blades are positioned such that each blade is set at a different angle, abstract of Solomennikov, while using the range of Brormann).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lembke further teaches the blade angle for each of the three razor blades is between 17 degrees and 30 degrees (as modified in claim 1, range of 15-30 degrees meets the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lembke further teaches three razor blades are canted in alternating different ways from perpendicular when measured from the first side and the second side, to impart a shear force (as best understood the current claim 5 does not required measure from the long side, or that the canted here refer backs to the added cant angle of claim 1, therefore, alternating between position in Figure 7 and Figure 9 of Lembke for canted from perpendicular. Furthermore, the examiner notes if this claim is intended to capture the subject matter of Figure 13C of the current application, there is drawing with showing three different cant angles alternating, as Figure 13C only shown two different cant angles alternating).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lembke further teaches the at least three blades are arranged such that blade exposure is in a convex shape when viewed from a cutaway side view (see Figure 9 of Lembke).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lembke further teaches the at least three blades are arranged such that blade exposure is in a concave shape when viewed from a cutaway side view (see Figure 7 of Lembke).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lembke further teaches a distance between the first razor blade sharpened edge and the second razor blade sharpened edge is unknow value; and wherein a distance between the second razor blade sharpened edge and the third razor blade sharpened edge is unknow value (see Figure 2 of Lembke).
Lembke fails to teach wherein a distance between the first razor blade sharpened edge and the second razor blade sharpened edge is between 1.1 and 1.7 millimeters; and wherein a distance between the second razor blade sharpened edge and the third razor blade sharpened edge is between 1.1 and 1.7 millimeters.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific distance between the first and second sharpened edge and between the second and third sharpened edge to be between 1.1 and 1.7 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 Lembke’ blade spacing to have the specific distances set forth in the claim base on the desired feel of the end user during shaving.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lembke further teaches a mid-cartridge wall (18) located in the frame to provide support (see Figures 4-5), the mid-cartridge wall positioned generally perpendicular to the cap side and perpendicular to the guard side (see Figure 4), the mid-cartridge wall located beneath the first razor blade, the second razor blade, and the third razor blade top of the frame (see Figure 4), the mid-cartridge wall in the frame between the first side and the second side, the mid-cartridge wall generally parallel to the first side and the second side (parallel to 32, see Figure 4 of Lembke).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lembke (US 20040168323 A1) in view of Guay (US 20060237021 A1), Solomennikov (US 20110146081 A1) and Brormann (US 20120311864 A1) and in further view of Nakasuka (US 20100229397 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lembke further teaches the razor blades are attached to the frame (paragraph 0031 of Lembke).
Lembke fails to teach the razor blades are welded to the frame.
Nakasuka teaches a razor device where the razor blades are welded to the frame (paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lembke to have the blades welded on the frame, as taught by Nakasuka. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that welding a blade to a frame is a common method of attaching a blade to a frame and welding have the advantage of creating a strong bond between the frame and blades.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case Solomennikov is used to teach that having different angles of cutting blades can increase the efficiency and ease of shaving of the razor blade (abstract of Solomennikov), while Brormann teaches a suitable range of 1—3 degrees for increase the cutting result and life of the blade (abstract of Brormann), no one reference teaches the claimed invention, furthermore, the rejection has further been written in two steps to clarify the modification to Lembke, lastly, Lembke is rely upon for teaching the added limitation of across substantially most of a length of the cap side and guard side.
Conclusion
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 12/12/2025