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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2025 and 03/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because abstract (10/13/2025) line 1 “A shaving razor cartridge” should be deleted and change the following language “The” to –A—since it is not a sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Haines et al (US 2017/0282388) hereinafter Haines in view of Clarke (US 2010/0083510).
Regarding claim 1, Haines shows a shaving razor cartridge (14, Figure 1), comprising: a housing (20) having a front portion (where the references 44 and 60, Figure 2) and a rear portion (where the references 26 and 32, Figure 2);
at least one blade (5 blades 22, Figure 2) having a respective cutting edge, the at least one blade retained within the housing and positioned between the front portion and the rear portion; and
at least one of the front portion and the rear portion having a first plurality of grooves (see the grooves or channels 114 formed by the flexible skin-engaging projections 112 and the grooves or channels 44 of the contacting bar 40 as seen in Figure 4A and Paras. 27-28) each of the grooves respectively extending from a top surface of the housing to bases of the plurality of grooves, wherein the first plurality of grooves each have a width of 20μm to 100μm at the top surface (see Para. 34 “d2” of about .10mm that is about 100μm) and extend a depth of 10μm to 100μm from the base to the top surface (as seen in Figure 4B, the height of the projections 112 “h3” is about 2/3 of “h2…0.1mm …1.5mm” or the height of the projections 112 is near the reference “h2” is within the claimed range since h2 is 0.1mm or 100μm).
If one still argues that the groove depth of Haines is NOT within the claimed range. Then, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a groove depth between the claimed ranges (10μm to 100μm) because discovering an optimum value above would have been a mere design consideration based on sizes and shapes of the skin contacting surfaces and flexibility and skin stretching properties. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the sizes and shapes of the skin contacting surfaces and flexibility and skin stretching properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art depending on the sizes and shapes of the skin contacting surfaces and flexibility and skin stretching properties. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known results effective variables, depending on the sizes and shapes of the skin contacting surfaces and flexibility and skin stretching properties as discussed in Para. 36 of Haines.
Haines also does not directly discuss the house being aluminum.
Clarke discusses a housing (16) of a cartridge (14) is made of aluminum (Para. 21 “ the housing 16 …may be machined from … aluminum”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the housing of Haines to be aluminum, as taught by Clarke, in order to allow the housing to maintain a consistent geometry during shaving (see Para. 21, lines 21-23 of Clarke).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the housing being made of aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416., in order to allow the housing rigidly protects the blades and maintains a consistent geometry during shaving as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, the modified cartridge of Haines shows a blade platform (Para. 16 and Figure 6 where the reference “14” is pointing), wherein the at least one blade is mounted to the blade platform and the housing covers the blade platform (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified cartridge of Haines shows that the first plurality of grooves are spaced apart by a distance of 20μm to 100μm (Figure 4A and Para. 35 “the generally rigid projections (42) may have a width “w4” that is generally equivalent to d2 and Para. 34 “d2…0.1mm that is 100μm).
Regarding claim 11, the modified cartridge of Haines shows all of the limitations as stated above including that the first plurality of grooves each have a width extending parallel to the at least one blade of 100μm at the top surface as stated in claim 1 above, but it is 40μm to 80μm.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the groove width is 40μm to 80μm (another word, the range of 40μm to 80μm is not critical).
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a groove width d2 between the claimed ranges (40μm to 80μm) because discovering an optimum value above would have been a mere design consideration based on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels (44) or grooves and improper spacing may result in discomfort caused by pressure points, skin bulges and/or the pulling of hair as discussed Haines’s paragraph 34. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known results effective variables, depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves as discussed in Para. 34 of Haines.
Regarding claim 12, the modified cartridge of Haines shows that each of the first plurality of grooves has a taper angle from the base to the top surface of 0 degree to 30 degrees (see the end of open channel 114 is tapered from 0 degree to 30 degrees, Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 13, the modified cartridge of Haines shows all of the limitations as stated above including known results effective variables, depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves as discussed in Para. 34 of Haines and see the discussion in claim 12 above. Moreover, the first plurality of grooves have a density of 10 to 50 grooves per mm2 and cover an area of 50 mm2 to 300 mm2 of the top surface of the housing.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a groove width d2 between the claimed ranges (the groove density of 10 to 50 grooves per mm2 and covering an area of 50 mm2 to 300 mm2 of the top surface of the housing) because discovering an optimum value above would have been a mere design consideration based on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves and improper spacing may result in discomfort caused by pressure points, skin bulges and/or the pulling of hair as discussed Haines’s paragraph 34. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known results effective variables, depending on the thickness and amount of hair passing through the open channels or grooves as discussed in Para. 34 of Haines.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haines in view of Clarke and Tseng (US 6298558).
Regarding claim 5, the modified cartridge of Haines shows that all of the limitations as stated above except that the first plurality of grooves are in the rear portion of the housing. Please note that Haines shows a lubricating strip (cap 32 as discussed in Para. 16, Figure 2 and Para. 17 “The cap 32…a lubricating strip”).
Tseng shows a cartridge (10, Figure 1) having a cap as a skin engaging member (64, Col.7, line 6 “The skin engaging member can also be a razor cap”) at a rear of the cartridge (Figure 3), wherein the skin engaging member has a plurality of grooves (Figure 8) for releasing a shaving aid (as discussed in Col.4, lines 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cap of Haines to have a plurality of grooves, as taught by Tseng, in order to prevent the shaving aid from being trapped in the skin engaging member. Furthermore, the addition of low-melt additives to the shaving aid becomes feasible and the compatibility between the shaving aid and the shaving aid carrier, such as polystyrene in the lubricating strip composite, becomes less critical (see Tseng’s Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the modified cartridge of Haines shows that each of the first plurality of grooves has a width extends parallel to the at least one blade (see the grooves of Tseng’s Figure 8) and the first plurality of grooves each has a length extending perpendicular to the at least one blade (Figures 1 and 8 of Tseng), however, it is unclear whether is 1 mm to 8 mm or not.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the groove length is 1 mm to 8 mm (another word, the range of 1 mm to 8 mm is not critical).
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a groove length between the claimed ranges (1 mm to 8 mm) because discovering an optimum value above would have been a mere design consideration based on amount of shaving aids to be released. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the amount of shaving aids to be released. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art depending on the amount of shaving aids to be released. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known results effective variables, depending on the amount of shaving aids to be released during shaving.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new combination of Haines in view of Clarke in claim 1 rejection above.
With regards to the “abstract” objection, Applicant has discussed it, but the abstract is the same or the previous version.
With regards to the “aluminum” housing, see Clarke’s housing in claim 1 above.
Examiner notes that Applicant concerns about the aluminum housing that is lower coefficient of friction. Applicant states that “Haines, in contrast, primarily discusses skin- engaging elements made of elastomeric or thermoplastic materials (Paragraphs [0003], [0019], [0022]). Paragraph [0023] specifically discloses the elongated skin contacting element (60) includes structures or coatings to increase the friction, not decrease friction. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Haines, as Haines teaches increasing friction, not decreasing friction”. This argument is not clear.
First, the Para. 3 of Haines is a background of the invention, not summary of the invention.
Second, the Para. 19 of Haines discusses “a stiff or rigid material may allow the housing (20) to maintain a consistent geometry during shaving and enhance the ability of the generally rigid projections (42) to lift and orient hairs”.
Third, in the Para. 22 recites “the harder material of the housing (20)” and in the Para. 23 recites “The base substrate can comprise …, aluminum”.
Based on the paragraphs above, there is no limit that the housing can’t be modified to have different materials such as aluminum because the housing requires stiff or rigid materials (in the para. 19), moreover, the housing material is different from the skin contacting element material (in the para. 19 “high friction microstructures); another words, the housing and the skin contacting element are two different parts and materials.
Therefore, the modification above is for only Haines’s housing to be “an aluminum housing”, for allowing the housing to maintain a consistent geometry during shaving; it does not affect the elongated skin contacting element (60) and its function (another words, it does not modify the skin contacting element material).
With regards to MPEP 2125 “…the drawings are to scale…” later, Applicant states that “Office Action’s findings lack evidentiary support”, this argument is acknowledged. As the argument is written, it is unclear what Applicant argues about. Examiner assumes it is about the groove depth of 10-100 μm. This argument is not persuasive because there clearly is an evidence of the groove depth as seen in Haines’s Figure 4B, the base 120 of the groove is upwards slope from the reference “h3” to the reference “h2”. The depth at the reference “h2” is less 100 μm (see h2 and the conversion in claim 1 above), therefore, it meets the claimed range. See MPEP. 2125 “Drawings are Prior Art”, section I.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 4/8/2026