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 Examiner acknowledges the election of Species III of Group A and Species iii of Group B electing claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as drawn to the elected species. This election is final.
The Examiner acknowledges the withdrawal of claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 drawn to the non-elected species. The withdrawn claims are eligible for rejoinder upon the allowance of the elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: Line 4 reads “a top surface of housing cover” should read “a top surface of the housing cover”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 3,138,865 A) in view of Depaz (US 2018/0161999 A1), Ortiz (US 5,557,851 A), and Daskal et al. (US 2005/0188548 A1), hereafter known as Daskal.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches a method of making a shaving razor (Meyer, Fig. 1-7), comprising: providing a blade platform (Meyer, Fig. 1 and 5-7, 1) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Meyer, Fig. 1, 4); providing a housing cover (Meyer, Fig. 1, 3) with a top surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) below) configured to be secured to the blade platform (Meyer, Col. 2, lines 27-34).
Meyer does not teach a housing cover removably secured to the blade platform and forming a first textured surface including a first pattern of elements on a front portion of the housing cover by laser ablating, the first pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the housing cover.
Depaz teaches a shaving razor (Depaz, Fig. 1-13) comprising a blade platform (Depaz, Fig. 1, 150) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Depaz, Fig. 1, 120 and 140), and a housing cover (Depaz, Fig. 1, 110) configured to be removably secured to the blade platform (Depaz, P. 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer such that the housing cover were removable as taught by Depaz as doing so allow for the blades to be replaced.
Ortiz teaches a blade platform (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 20) for receiving one or more blades (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 40 and 50) and a housing cover (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 60) secured to the blade platform, wherein the housing cover features a textured surface including a pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) while Meyer teaches a blade platform featuring a textured surface on a front and rear portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) below) that provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 41-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer in view of the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz such as to feature a textured surface as taught by Ortiz and to have these surfaces featured on both a front and rear portion as further taught by Meyer as this provides a surface on either portion to provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) comprises one of a plurality of parallel grooves (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62).
As Meyer teaches a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9, Col. 1, lines 52-64) which serve a similar function of skin tightening and hair-raising as the plurality of parallel grooves taught by Ortiz and, as such, the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and third pattern of elements to each comprise one of a first plurality of grooves.
Regarding claim 4, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising forming a second textured surface (Meyer, Fig. 1, 8) including a second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) on a front portion of the blade platform (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above).
Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel as modified does not teach a second textured surface including a second pattern of element on a front portion of the blade platform by laser ablating and the second pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the blade platform.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel to further include laser ablating patterns of elements on the blade platform as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the patterns of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 5, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) comprises one of a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising forming a third textured surface (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) including a third pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) on a rear portion of the housing cover (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above).
Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel as modified does not teach a third textured surface including a third pattern of element on a rear portion of the blade platform by laser ablating and the third pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of housing cover.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 8, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first pattern of elements and the third pattern of elements comprise one of a plurality of parallel grooves (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62).
As Meyer teaches a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9, Col. 1, lines 52-64) which serve a similar function of skin tightening and hair-raising as the plurality of parallel grooves taught by Ortiz and, as such, the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and third pattern of elements to each comprise one of a first plurality of grooves.
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 3,138,865 A) in view of Depaz (US 2018/0161999 A1) and Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Meyer teaches a method of making a shaving razor (Meyer, Fig. 1-7), comprising:
providing a blade platform (Meyer, Fig. 1 and 5-7, 1) with a top surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Meyer, Fig. 1, 4);
providing a housing cover (Meyer, Fig. 1, 3) configured to be secured to the blade platform (Meyer, Col. 2, lines 27-34); and
forming a second textured surface (Meyer, Fig. 1, 8) including a second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) on a front portion of the blade platform (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) on a top surface of the blade platform.
Meyer does not teach a housing cover removably secured to the blade platform and forming a second textured surface including a second pattern of elements on a front portion of the blade platform by laser ablating, the second pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the blade platform.
Depaz teaches a shaving razor (Depaz, Fig. 1-13) comprising a blade platform (Depaz, Fig. 1, 150) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Depaz, Fig. 1, 120 and 140), and a housing cover (Depaz, Fig. 1, 110) configured to be removably secured to the blade platform (Depaz, P. 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer such that the housing cover were removable as taught by Depaz as doing so allow for the blades to be replaced.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 11, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) comprises one of a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 13, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 11.
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not teach wherein the first plurality of parallel grooves are spaced apart by a distance of 20 µm to 100 µm.
While Meyer does not specifically teach the spacing between the first plurality of parallel grooves it does show that such parallel grooves are known to be spaced in the art. Additionally, the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed range and discloses in the instant specification that the range is an example for such a spacing (Pg. 3, lines 1-2). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide spacing between each groove in such a plurality of parallel grooves as to allow for tightening of the skin during shaving and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the plurality of parallel grooves such that they were spaced apart by any distance deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 14, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising forming a fourth textured surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) including a fourth pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) on a rear portion of the blade platform (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above).
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal as modified does not teach forming a fourth textured surface including a fourth pattern of elements on a rear portion of the blade platform by laser ablating, the fourth pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the blade platform.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the second pattern of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) and the fourth pattern of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) comprise one of a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 52-64)
Regarding claim 17, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 15.
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not teach wherein the first plurality of parallel grooves are spaced apart by a distance of 20 µm to 100 µm.
While Meyer does not specifically teach the spacing between the first plurality of parallel grooves it does show that such parallel grooves are known to be spaced in the art. Additionally, the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed range and discloses in the instant specification that the range is an example for such a spacing (Pg. 3, lines 1-2). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide spacing between each groove in such a plurality of parallel grooves as to allow for tightening of the skin during shaving and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the plurality of parallel grooves such that they were spaced apart by any distance deemed desirable.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 3,138,865 A) in view of Depaz (US 2018/0161999 A1) and Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ortiz (US 5,557,851 A).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 14.
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal as modified does not teach further comprising: forming a first textured surface including a first pattern of elements on a front portion of the housing cover by laser ablating the front portion of the housing cover, the first pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the housing cover; and forming a third textured surface including a third pattern of elements on a rear portion of the housing cover by laser ablating the rear portion of the housing cover, the third pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the housing cover.
Ortiz teaches a blade platform (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 20) for receiving one or more blades (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 40 and 50) and a housing cover (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 60) secured to the blade platform, wherein the housing cover features a textured surface including a pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) while Meyer teaches a blade platform featuring a textured surface on a front and rear portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) below) that provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 41-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer in view of the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz such as to feature a textured surface as taught by Ortiz and to have these surfaces featured on both a front and rear portion as further taught by Meyer as this provides a surface on either portion to provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 19, Meyer in view of Depaz, Daskal, and Ortiz teaches method of claim 18, wherein the first pattern of elements and the third pattern of elements each comprise one of a plurality of parallel grooves (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62).
As Meyer teaches the first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9, Col. 1, lines 52-64) which serve a similar function of skin tightening and hair-raising as the plurality of parallel grooves taught by Ortiz and, as such, the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and third pattern of elements to each comprise one of a first plurality of grooves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724