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 .
Detailed Action
The amendment filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. Patent No. 3,138,865) in view of Hickam (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0352737), Ortiz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,689,883, hereinafter “Ortiz”) and Hultman (U.S. Patent No. 4,741,103).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Meyer discloses a shaving razor (see Fig.1) comprising:
a blade platform (1,7) configured to support one or more shaving blades (4); and
a housing cover (3) secured on top of the blade platform (1,7) substantially as claimed except Meyer does not explicitly disclose the housing cover (3) is “removably” secured to the blade platform (1,7), and the housing cover (3) does not have a textured surface including a pattern of elements.
Hickam teaches it is desirable to have a housing cover (16) of a shaving razor (11) “removably” secured on top of a blade platform (14) of the shaving razor (10) for allowing replacement of a shaving blade (18) that is clamped between the housing cover (16) and the blade platform (14).
In view of Hickam’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Meyer by having the housing cover (4) “removably” secured on top of the blade platform (1,7) for the advantage set forth.
Ortiz shows a shaving razor (Fig.4) comprising a blade platform (20) configured to support one or more shaving blades (12,14), and a housing cover (16) secured on top of the blade platform (20), wherein the housing cover (16) is equipped with a textured surface (50, see Fig.12 and column 6, lines 56-57) including a pattern of elements (11a, see column 6, lines 58-59). Meyer shows the blade platform (1,7) equipped with a textured surface (8) on its front portion (e.g., at a right side portion as seen in Fig.1) and a textured surface (8) on its rear portion (e.g., at a left side portion as seen in Fig.1).
The collective teachings of Ortiz and Meyer would have suggested and, thereby, rendered obvious to provide Meyer’s housing cover (3) with textured surfaces each including a pattern of elements at a front portion and a rear portion thereof so that when either one of the blade edges (4’) of Meyer’s blade (4) is used for shaving, its associated pattern of elements on the textured surface at either the front portion or the rear portion of the housing cover (3) facilitate stretching/tightening skin during shaving.
It is noted the pattern of elements in the modified Meyer fails to show a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm.
Hultman shows a shaving razor (Fig.1) comprising a textured surface (13) including a pattern of elements (see Fig.3) with a depth (“Z” = 0.002” or 51 µm, see claim 3) meeting the claimed limitation of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width (“X” = between 0.0005” and 0.004” or between 12 µm to 102 µm, see claim 2) meeting the claimed limitation of 20 µm to 100 µm.
In view of Hultman’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Meyer by making the textured surface (8) a “micro-textured” surface for the predictable result of stretching skin during shaving as taught by Hultman (see column 2, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 2, in Meyer as modified, the first pattern of elements comprises a first plurality of parallel grooves (e.g., similar to the parallel grooves 9 in the blade platform 1 of Meyer’s Fig.5).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Meyer teaches the general concept of having a textured surface (8) equipped with a plurality of parallel grooves (9) for stretching/tightening skin during shaving, and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Meyer by having the plurality of parallel grooves of the housing cover (3) arranged at any orientation, including the claimed “perpendicular to” a front/rear edge of the housing cover (3) for the predictable result of stretching/tightening skin during shaving. Moreover, as evidenced by the Applicant, the parallel grooves (120A) can be arranged “perpendicular to” the front/rear edge (60,65) of the housing cover (50, see Fig.3A of this instant application) or alternatively, be arranged “parallel to” the front/rear edge (60,65) of the housing cover (50, see Fig.4A of this instant application). It appears the arrangement of the parallel grooves depends more upon an obvious mater of design choice than on any inventive concept so long as the parallel grooves perform the requisite function of stretching/tightening skin during shaving.
Regarding claim 4, Meyer’s blade platform (1,7) has a front portion (7, e.g., at a right side portion thereof as seen in Fig.1) with a second textured surface (8) including a second pattern of elements (9) with a depth and a width at a top surface of the blade platform (1,7) substantially as claimed except Meyer silent about the depth and the width of the blade platform (1,7).
Hultman shows a shaving razor (Fig.1) comprising a textured surface (13) including a pattern of elements (see Fig.3) with a depth (“Z” = 0.002” or 51 µm, see claim 3) meeting the claimed limitation of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width (“X” = between 0.0005” and 0.004” or between 12 µm to 102 µm, see claim 2) meeting the claimed limitation of 20 µm to 100 µm.
In view of Hultman’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Meyer by making the textured surface (8) a “micro-textured” surface for the predictable result of stretching skin during shaving as taught by Hultman (see column 2, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer’s second pattern of elements (9) comprises a first plurality of parallel grooves (9, see Fig.5).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer’s second pattern of elements comprise a first plurality of parallel grooves (9) extending longitudinally and intersecting a second plurality of longitudinally extending parallel grooves (14, see Fig.7) substantially as claimed except Meyer’s first plurality of parallel grooves (9) and second plurality of parallel grooves (14) interest at an angle of 90 degrees (e.g., the same as in Applicant’s Fig.11B and disclosed on page 9, lines 32-34 of Applicant’s specification) rather than the claimed 45 to 75 degrees (shown in Applicant’s Fig.12B and disclosed at line 34 on page 10 to line 2 on page 11 of Applicant’s specification), and the first plurality of parallel grooves (9) is at an angle other than either parallel to or perpendicular to a front edge of the housing cover (3). However, the claimed arrangements for the first plurality of parallel grooves and the second plurality of parallel grooves are not patentability distinct over Meyer because the general concept of having a textured surface (8) equipped with intersecting first plurality parallel grooves (9) and second plurality parallel grooves (14) is taught by Meyer, and the exact intersecting arrangement for the first plurality of parallel grooves and the second plurality of parallel grooves is deemed to be an obvious matter of design choice (as evidenced by Applicants’ Figs.11B and 12B) due to the lack of criticality.
Regarding claim 8, Meyer teaches, in one embodiment (see Fig.7), a first plurality of grooves (9) of the blade platform (1,7) intersecting a second plurality of parallel grooves (14) of the blade platform (1,7). Thus, to further modify Meyer by having the first plurality of parallel grooves of the housing cover (3) intersecting the second plurality of plurality grooves of the housing cover (3) suitable for stretching skin during shaving would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
3. Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. Patent No. 3,138,865) in view of Hickam (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0352737) and Hultman (U.S. Patent No. 4,741,103).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Meyer discloses a shaving razor (see Fig.1) comprising:
a blade platform (1,7) configured to support one or more shaving blades (4); and
a housing cover (3) secured on top of the blade platform (1,7); wherein
the blade platform (1,7) has a front portion (7, e.g., at a right side portion thereof as seen in Fig.1) with a second textured surface (8) including a second pattern of elements (9) having a depth and a width at a top surface of the blade platform (1,7) and a rear portion (7, e.g., at a left side portion thereof as seen in Fig.1) with a fourth textured surface (8) including a fourth pattern of elements (9) having a depth and a width at the top surface of the blade platform (1,7) substantially as claimed except Meyer does not explicitly disclose the housing cover (3) is “removably” secured to the blade platform (1,7) and is silent about the depth and the width of the second and fourth pattern of elements (9).
Hickam teaches it is desirable to have a housing cover (16) of a shaving razor (11) “removably” secured on top of a blade platform (14) of the shaving razor (10) for allowing replacement of a shaving blade (18) that is clamped between the housing cover (16) and the blade platform (14).
In view of Hickam’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Meyer by having the housing cover (4) “removably” secured on top of the blade platform (1,7) for the advantage set forth.
Hultman shows a shaving razor (Fig.1) comprising a textured surface (13) including a pattern of elements (see Fig.3) with a depth (“Z” = 0.002” or 51 µm, see claim 3) meeting the claimed limitation of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width (“X” = between 0.0005” and 0.004” or between 12 µm to 102 µm, see claim 2) meeting the claimed limitation of 20 µm to 100 µm.
In view of Hultman’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Meyer by making the textured surface (8) a “micro-textured” surface for the predictable result of stretching skin during shaving as taught by Hultman (see column 2, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer’s second pattern of elements (9) comprises a first plurality of parallel grooves (9, see Fig.5).
Regarding claim 12, Meyer’s second pattern of elements comprise a first plurality of parallel grooves (9) extending longitudinally and intersecting a second plurality of longitudinally extending parallel grooves (14, see Fig.7) substantially as claimed except Meyer’s first plurality of parallel grooves (9) and second plurality of parallel grooves (14) interest at an angle of 90 degrees (e.g., the same as in Applicant’s Fig.11B and disclosed on page 9, lines 32-34 of Applicant’s specification) rather than 45 to 75 degrees (shown in Applicant’s Fig.12B and disclosed at line 34 on page 10 to line 2 on page 11 of Applicant’s specification), and the first plurality of parallel grooves (9) is at an angle other than either parallel to or perpendicular to a front edge of the housing cover (3). However, the claimed arrangements for the first plurality of parallel grooves and the second plurality of parallel grooves are not patentability distinct over Meyer because the general concept of having a textured surface (8) equipped with intersecting first plurality parallel grooves (9) and second plurality parallel grooves (14) is taught by Meyer, and the exact intersecting arrangement for the first plurality of parallel grooves and the second plurality of parallel grooves is deemed to be an obvious matter of design choice (as evidenced by Applicants’ Figs.11B and 12B) due to the lack of criticality.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Hultman teaches the angle “θ” (see Fig.3) can be 90º (see claim 4). As such, Hultman’s grooves (see Fig.3) are spaced apart by a distance of 20 µm to 100 µm (note “X” is between 0.0005” and 0.004” or between 12 µm to 102 µm, see claim 2 and Fig.3). Meyer thus modified also possesses such characteristic.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer’s second pattern of elements (9) and fourth pattern of elements (9) comprise a first plurality of parallel grooves (9, see Figs.1, 2, and 5).
Regarding claim 16, Meyer’s fourth pattern of elements comprise a first plurality of parallel grooves (9) extending longitudinally and intersecting a second plurality of longitudinally extending parallel grooves (14, see Fig.7) substantially as claimed except Meyer’s first plurality of parallel grooves (9) and second plurality of parallel grooves (14) interest at an angle of 90 degrees (e.g., the same as in Applicant’s Fig.11B and disclosed on page 9, lines 32-34 of Applicant’s specification) rather than 45 to 75 degrees (shown in Applicant’s Fig.12B and disclosed at line 34 on page 10 to line 2 on page 11 of Applicant’s specification), and the first plurality of parallel grooves (9) is at an angle other than either parallel to or perpendicular to a rear edge of the housing cover (3). However, the claimed arrangements for the first plurality of parallel grooves and the second plurality of parallel grooves are not patentability distinct over Meyer because the general concept of having a textured surface (8) equipped with intersecting first plurality parallel grooves (9) and second plurality parallel grooves (14) is taught by Meyer, and the exact intersecting arrangement for the first plurality of parallel grooves and the second plurality of parallel grooves is deemed to be an obvious matter of design choice (as evidenced by Applicants’ Figs.11B and 12B) due to the lack of criticality.
4. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. Patent No. 3,138,865) in view of Hickam (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0352737) and Hultman (U.S. Patent No. 4,741,103) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ortiz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,689,883, hereinafter “Ortiz”).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer’s shaving razor as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except the housing cover (3) is not provided with a textured surface including a pattern of elements.
Ortiz shows a shaving razor (Fig.4) comprising a blade platform (20) configured to support one or more shaving blades (12,14), and a housing cover (16) secured on top of the blade platform (20), wherein the housing cover (16) is equipped with a textured surface (50, see Fig.12 and column 6, lines 56-57) including a pattern of elements (11a, see column 6, lines 58-59). Meyer shows the blade platform (1,7) equipped with a textured surface (8) on its front portion (e.g., at a right side portion as seen in Fig.1) and a textured surface (8) on its rear portion (e.g., at a left side portion as seen in Fig.1).
The collective teachings of Ortiz and Meyer would have suggested and, thereby, rendered obvious to provide Meyer’s housing cover (3) with textured surfaces each including a pattern of elements at a front portion and a rear portion thereof so that when either one of the blade edges (4’) of Meyer’s blade (4) is used for shaving, its associated pattern of elements on the textured surface at either the front portion or the rear portion of the housing cover (3) facilitate stretching/tightening skin during shaving.
Since Hultman teaches a shaving razor equipped with a “micro-textured” surface (13, note the above 103 rejection of claim 10) with a depth and a width of the pattern of elements of the micro-textured surface in the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Meyer by making the textured surface of the housing cover (3) a “micro-textured” surface for the predictable result of stretching skin during shaving as taught by Hultman (see column 2, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 19, to further modify Meyer by having patterns of elements of the housing cover (3) in the form of a plurality of parallel grooves (9) as those shown in the blade platform (1,7, see Figs.1,2,5 of Mayer) suitable for stretching skin during shaving would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Meyer teaches the general concept of having a textured surface (8) equipped with a plurality of parallel grooves (9) for stretching/tightening skin during shaving, and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Meyer by having the plurality of parallel grooves of the housing cover (3) arranged at any orientation, including the claimed “perpendicular to” a front/rear edge of the housing cover (3) for the predictable result of stretching/tightening skin during shaving. Moreover, as evidenced by the Applicant, the parallel grooves (120A) can be arranged “perpendicular to” the front/rear edge (60,65) of the housing cover (50, see Fig.3A of this instant application) or alternatively, be arranged “parallel to” the front/rear edge (60,65) of the housing cover (50, see Fig.4A of this instant application). It appears the arrangement of the parallel grooves depends more upon an obvious mater of design choice than on any inventive concept so long as the parallel grooves perform the requisite function of stretching/tightening skin during shaving.
Prior Art Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 5,590,468 is cited to show a skin-engaging member (see Figs. 16-17) comprising a plurality of parallel grooves (separated by protrusions 108,108’, see Figs.16-17) extending longitudinal “perpendicular to” (pertinent to claims 3, 9 and 20) a front edge (112) and a rear edge (opposite the front edge 11) of the skin-engaging member.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in light of the above new ground(s) of rejection.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashely, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights