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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
at line 5, “the width of the main portion” should be amended to read “the first width” (claim 10 requires similar corrections at line 7)
at line 9, “the guard” should be amended to read “the elastomeric guard” (claim 10 requires similar corrections at line 11)
Claim 5:
at line 1, “substantially” should be deleted (claim 14 requires similar corrections at line 2)
at line 2, “a width of the open area of the main portion” should be amended to read “the first width” (claim 14 requires similar corrections at line 2)
Claim 20: at line 2, “the vertical portion” should be amended to read “a vertical portion”
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 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkus (US 20150128424) in view of Griffin (US 20170043491).Regarding claim 1, Witkus discloses a razor cartridge comprising: an elongated housing comprising a generally rectangular main portion (housing 16 is substantially rectangular; see fig. 2) defining a central open area and having a first width (housing 16 contains an open area and has a first width; see fig. 2), and a shelf portion extending from the main portion and terminating in a leading edge (guard bar 25 extends out from the main portion of housing 16; see fig. 4), , an elastomeric guard mounted on the shelf portion such that the elastomeric guard extends beyond the main portion of the housing (guard structure 20 is mounted on guard bar 25 and extends out beyond the main portion of housing 16; see paragraph [0028] and figs. 2, 4) and the open areas are positioned on either side of the guard (an open space is positioned on either side of guard structure 20; see fig. 2), allowing a user to easily manipulate the razor cartridge in narrow areas, a plurality of blades disposed within the open area of the main portion of the housing (at least three blades 18 are supported within the open area of housing 16; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2), and a pair of clips disposed on opposite sides of the open area and configured to secure the blades in the housing (a pair of clips 17 are disposed on opposite ends of housing 16 in order to retain blades 18 in housing 16; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2), each clip having a pair of legs that wrap around the main portion of the housing outboard of the open area (each of clips 17 have a pair of legs that wrap around housing 16 outside of the open area; see figs. 2 and 3) and are bent against a lower surface of the main portion (the legs of clips 17 are bent along a lower surface of the main portion of housing 16; see fig. 3).
Witkus does not explicitly disclose a shelf portion having a second width narrower than the first width and being positioned centrally along the width of the main portion such that open areas are provided on either side of the shelf portion.
Griffin discloses a shelf portion having a second width narrower than the first width (the width of the shelf portion is narrower than the first width; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) and being positioned centrally along the width of the main portion (the shelf portion is positioned centrally along the width of the main portion of the cartridge; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) such that open areas are provided on either side of the shelf portion (as modified, an open area is provided on each side of guard structure 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in view of Griffin to include a shelf portion as described above. Witkus discloses a shelf portion (guard bar 25), but it is not structured in such a way as to yield the above details. Griffin teaches that the shelf portion can be located underneath the elastomeric guard (see fig. 4). As modified to have the shelf portion located below the elastomeric guard (guard structure 20), Witkus discloses the invention essentially as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification obvious because Witkus discloses that guard bar 25 is only desirably located at the back end of guard structure 20 (see paragraph [0028]) and thus, it can be moved; Griffin simply discloses another configuration for the shelf portion which is still capable of supporting the elastomeric guard during a shaving operation. Further, configuring the elements in this way would allow a user to more easily replace the elastomeric guard depending on the desired skin tensioning characteristics, or if the guard becomes worn.
Regarding claim 2, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the shelf portion is provided with side walls to support side surfaces of the elastomeric guard (as modified to include a shelf portion below guard structure 20, a side wall supports the sides of the shelf portion; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
522
463
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the elastomeric guard comprises a plurality of longitudinally extending fins (guard structure 20 comprises a plurality of protrusions 32a-32f; see paragraphs [0030-0031] and figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 4, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein at least some of the fins are disposed outside of the main portion of the housing (at least some of protrusions 32a-32f are disposed outside of the main portion of housing 16; see figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the second width is substantially equal to a width of the open area of the main portion (the second width extends the width of guard structure 20, and is substantially equal to the first width defining the open area of housing 16; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the shelf portion extends beyond the main portion a distance of about 2 to 4 mm (as modified to include the shelf portion extending below guard structure 20, the shelf portion may extend between about 1 mm to 3 mm; see paragraphs [0028, 0041] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the fins have different lengths, and a longest fin is positioned adjacent the leading edge of the shelf (protrusions 32a-32f have different lengths, and protrusion 32b is positioned near the leading edge; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Witkus discloses a shaving system comprising: a handle (handle 14; see fig. 1), and a razor cartridge mounted on a distal end of the handle (cartridge 12 is mounted on an end of handle 14; see fig. 1), the razor cartridge comprising an elongated housing comprising a generally rectangular main portion (housing 16 is substantially rectangular; see fig. 2) defining a central open area and having a first width (housing 16 contains an open area and has a first width; see fig. 2), and a shelf portion extending from the main portion and terminating in a leading edge (guard bar 25 extends out from the main portion of housing 16; see fig. 4),, an elastomeric guard mounted on the shelf portion such that the elastomeric guard extends beyond the main portion of the housing (guard structure 20 is mounted on guard bar 25 and extends out beyond the main portion of housing 16; see paragraph [0028] and figs. 2, 4) and the open areas are positioned on either side of the guard (an open space is positioned on either side of guard structure 20; see fig. 2), allowing a user to easily manipulate the razor cartridge in narrow areas, a plurality of blades disposed within the open area of the main portion of the housing (at least three blades 18 are supported within the open area of housing 16; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2), and a pair of clips disposed on opposite sides of the open area and configured to secure the blades in the housing (a pair of clips 17 are disposed on opposite ends of housing 16 in order to retain blades 18 in housing 16; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2), each clip having a pair of legs that wrap around the main portion of the housing outboard of the open area (each of clips 17 have a pair of legs that wrap around housing 16 outside of the open area; see figs. 2 and 3) and are bent against a lower surface of the main portion (the legs of clips 17 are bent along a lower surface of the main portion of housing 16; see fig. 3).
Witkus does not explicitly disclose a shelf portion having a second width narrower than the first width and being positioned centrally along the width of the main portion such that open areas are provided on either side of the shelf portion.
Griffin discloses a shelf portion having a second width narrower than the first width (the width of the shelf portion is narrower than the first width; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) and being positioned centrally along the width of the main portion (the shelf portion is positioned centrally along the width of the main portion of the cartridge; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) such that open areas are provided on either side of the shelf portion (as modified, an open area is provided on each side of guard structure 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in view of Griffin to include a shelf portion as described above. Witkus discloses a shelf portion (guard bar 25), but it is not structured in such a way as to yield the above details. Griffin teaches that the shelf portion can be located underneath the elastomeric guard (see fig. 4). As modified to have the shelf portion located below the elastomeric guard (guard structure 20), Witkus discloses the invention essentially as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification obvious because Witkus discloses that guard bar 25 is only desirably located at the back end of guard structure 20 (see paragraph [0028]) and thus, it can be moved; Griffin simply discloses another configuration for the shelf portion which is still capable of supporting the elastomeric guard during a shaving operation. Further, configuring the elements in this way would allow a user to more easily replace the elastomeric guard depending on the desired skin tensioning characteristics, or if the guard becomes worn.
Regarding claim 11, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses an elastomeric guard mounted on the shelf portion such that at least a portion of the elastomeric guard extends beyond the main portion of the housing (guard structure 20 extends out beyond the main portion of housing 16; see paragraph [0028] and figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 12, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the elastomeric guard comprises a plurality of longitudinally extending fins extending from a common base (guard structure 20 comprises a plurality of protrusions 32a-32f which extend from a common base portion; see paragraphs [0030-0031] and figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 13, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the elastomeric guard is positioned so that at least some of the fins are disposed outside of the main portion of the housing (at least some of protrusions 32a-32f are disposed outside of the main portion of housing 16; see figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the second width is substantially equal to a width of the open area of the main portion (the second width extends the width of guard structure 20, and is substantially equal to the first width defining the open area of housing 16; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the shelf portion extends beyond the main portion a distance of about 2 to 4 mm (as modified to include the shelf portion extending below guard structure 20, the shelf portion may extend between about 1 mm to 3 mm; see paragraphs [0028, 0041] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the fins have different lengths, and a longest fin is positioned adjacent the leading edge of the shelf (protrusions 32a-32f have different lengths, and protrusion 32b is positioned near the leading edge; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Witkus discloses a method of shaving, the method comprising: contacting the skin with a razor cartridge (at least a portion of the cartridge contacts the user’s skin during shaving; see paragraph [0029]), the razor cartridge comprising (a) an elongated housing comprising a generally rectangular main portion (housing 16 is substantially rectangular; see fig. 2) defining a central open area and having a first width (housing 16 contains an open area and has a first width; see fig. 2), and a shelf portion extending from the main portion and terminating in a leading edge (guard bar 25 extends out from the main portion of housing 16; see fig. 4)(b) a plurality of blades disposed within the open area of the main portion of the housing (at least three blades 18 are supported within the open area of housing 16; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2), and (c) a pair of clips disposed on opposite sides of the open area and configured to secure the blades in the housing (a pair of clips 17 are disposed on opposite ends of housing 16 in order to retain blades 18 in housing 16; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2), each clip having a pair of legs that wrap around the main portion of the housing outboard of the open area (each of clips 17 have a pair of legs that wrap around housing 16 outside of the open area; see figs. 2 and 3) and are bent against a lower surface of the main portion (the legs of clips 17 are bent along a lower surface of the main portion of housing 16; see fig. 3).
Witkus does not explicitly disclose that the shelf portion has a second width narrower than the first width.
Griffin discloses a shelf portion having a second width narrower than the first width (the width of the shelf portion is narrower than the first width; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in view of Griffin to include a shelf portion as described above. Witkus discloses a shelf portion (guard bar 25), but it is not structured in such a way as to yield the above details. Griffin teaches that the shelf portion can be located underneath the elastomeric guard (see fig. 4). As modified to have the shelf portion located below the elastomeric guard (guard structure 20), Witkus discloses the invention essentially as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification obvious because Witkus discloses that guard bar 25 is only desirably located at the back end of guard structure 20 (see paragraph [0028]) and thus, it can be moved; Griffin simply discloses another configuration for the shelf portion which is still capable of supporting the elastomeric guard during a shaving operation. Further, configuring the elements in this way would allow a user to more easily replace the elastomeric guard depending on the desired skin tensioning characteristics, or if the guard becomes worn.
Regarding claim 20, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified further discloses wherein the main portion of the housing is configured so that the vertical portion of each second leg is aligned with one of the elastomeric fins that contacts a user's skin immediately prior to the skin contacting a first one of the blades (a vertical portion of the legs of clips 17 is aligned with one of protrusions 32a-32f, which contact a user’s skin prior to blades 18; see paragraph [0029] and fig. 2).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkus (US 20150128424) in view of Griffin (US 20170043491), and further in view of Anderson (US 5761814).
Regarding claim 8, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein both of the legs of each clip are visible along their entire length.
Anderson discloses wherein both of the legs of each clip are visible along their entire length (each portion of clips 50, 51 are visible when assembled; see figs. 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in view of Anderson to make the legs of each clip visible along their entire length. In doing so, there are no gaps that the clips must be inserted into then bent around the housing. This would make production easier and more efficient, since it is possible that part of the clip could be pre-bent before assembly. Therefore, in order to make assembling the cartridge during production easier, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein both of the legs of each clip are visible along their entire length.
Anderson discloses wherein both of the legs of each clip are visible along their entire length (each portion of clips 50, 51 are visible when assembled; see figs. 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in view of Anderson to make the legs of each clip visible along their entire length. In doing so, there are no gaps that the clips must be inserted into then bent around the housing. This would make production easier and more efficient, since it is possible that part of the clip could be pre-bent before assembly. Therefore, in order to make assembling the cartridge during production easier, such a modification would be obvious.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkus (US 20150128424) in view of Griffin (US 20170043491), and further in view of Jessemey (US 20130097868).
Regarding claim 9, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the second width is about 5 to 10 mm less than the first width.
Jessemey discloses wherein the second width is about 5 to 10 mm less than the first width (W1 may be about 30mm, while W2 may be about 25mm; see paragraphs [0041-0042] and fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in order to make the second width about 5 to 10 mm less than the first width. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second width, which corresponds to the guard, only needs to have a width that accommodates the width of the blades. That is, since the guard is configured to tension the skin before cutting, the guard only needs to correspond to the width of the blades so that the appropriate amount of skin is tensioned. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 18, Witkus as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Witkus as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the second width is about 5 to 10 mm less than the first width.
Jessemey discloses wherein the second width is about 5 to 10 mm less than the first width (W1 may be about 30mm, while W2 may be about 25mm; see paragraphs [0041-0042] and fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Witkus in order to make the second width about 5 to 10 mm less than the first width. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second width, which corresponds to the guard, only needs to have a width that accommodates the width of the blades. That is, since the guard is configured to tension the skin before cutting, the guard only needs to correspond to the width of the blades so that the appropriate amount of skin is tensioned. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the guard of Witkus is not elastomeric but instead a hard plastic, Examiner respectfully points to paragraph [0022], wherein it is stated that the guard structure may have portions of or be wholly comprised of materials such as elastomers. In a case where an elastomer is selected, the shelf portion as described above would be necessary to help support the guard structure.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724