DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 5-7-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 17-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-20, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US2008/0072431 to Ozenick in view of US 5,802,721 to Wain and US 2003/0204955 to Gilder.
In re Claim 1, Ozenick teaches a razor cartridge comprising:
a housing (see Figs. 1-3, #30, et al.) including a frame (see Figs. 1-3, #30, et al.) with a non-cutting element (see Fig. 3, #42/44/46), a guard (see Fig. 3, #52) and a cap (see Fig. 3, #54);
a first razor blade positioned between the guard and the non-cutting element (see Fig. 3, #18, between guard #52 and non-cutting element #46/44/42), the first razor blade having a blade edge extending toward the guard (see Fig. 3, #18), the non-cutting element is spaced apart from the first razor blade (see Fig. 3);
a second razor blade positioned between the non-cutting element and the cap (see Figs. 3A-B, showing two blades #32 between non-cutting element and cap #42), the second razor blade having a blade edge extending toward the guard (see Fig. 3A), the non-cutting element is spaced apart from the second razor blade (see Fig. 3A);
a first rinse-through gap between the first razor blade and the non-cutting element (see Fig. 3A showing a gap between the blades of array #30 and the non-cutting element); a second rinse-through gap between the second razor blade and the non-cutting (see Fig. 3A, showing a gap between the blades of array #32 and the non-cutting element).
Ozenick does not teach the non-cutting element has a plurality of open slots defined between a pair of projections disposed next to each other; or a first rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm; and a second rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.6 mm.
However, Wain teaches that it is known to provide a non-cutting element that has a plurality of open slots defined between a pair of projections disposed next to each other (see Wain, Figs. 4-6, #9/8 which have projections and adjacent slots; see also Figs. 10-11). In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, replace the non-cutting element of Ozenick with the non-cutting element of Wain with the open slots and adjacent projections. Doing so improves the closeness of shave (see Wain, Col. 1, ll. 37 – Col. 2, ll. 16).
Additionally, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of spacing razor blades in razor cartridges to provide a gap of 0.5mm to 1.5mm (see Gilder, Fig. 1, S1; see also Para. 0016) between a non-cutting element and a cutting element. In the same field of invention, razor blade spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a first rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm; and a second rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.6 mm, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (se Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
In re Claim 4, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the range of the second rinse-through gap is about 0.2 mm to about 0.5 mm (see Gilder, Para. 0016, teaching .5mm).
In re Claim 5, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a first primary span located between the guard and the blade edge of the first blade is about 0.01 mm to about 1 mm.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of spacing razor blades to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0 (see Gilder, Fig. 1 and Para. 0016). In the same field of invention, razor blade spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (see Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
In re Claim 6, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a secondary span located between the non-cutting element and the blade edge of the first blade is about 0.5 mm to about 2.0 mm.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of spacing razor blades to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0 (see Gilder, Fig. 1 and Para. 0016). In the same field of invention, razor blade spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (se Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
In re Claim 7, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a span between the non-cutting element and the blade edge of the second blade is about 0.01 mm to about 1 mm. However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of spacing razor blades to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0 (see Gilder, Fig. 1 and Para. 0016). In the same field of invention, razor blade spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (se Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
In re Claim 8, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a span between the blade edge of the first blade and the blade edge of the second blade is about 1.5 mm to about 2.5 mm. However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of spacing razor blades to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0 (see Gilder, Fig. 1 and Para. 0016). In the same field of invention, razor blade spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (se Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
In re Claim 9, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein a blade exposure of both blades is negative relative to the non-cutting element. However, Gilder teaches that it is known to provide a negative blade exposure (see Gilder, Para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a blade exposure of both blades as negative relative to the non-cutting element as this arrangement has the effect of tending to equalize the work performed by the respective blades, since in a multiple blade razor the leading blade has a tendency to do most of the work(see Gilder, para. 0006).
In re Claim 10, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a leading end portion of the slots receives hairs and the slot's trailing end portion feeds the hair to the blades and a width of the leading end portion is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (see Wain, Col. 2, ll. 15-26, teaching slot mouth width in the order of 0.50 mm).
In re Claim 11, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a pitch of the open slots is 0.20 mm to 1 mm (see Wain, Col. 2, ll. 25-32, teaching a pitch range of 0.7 to 1.2 mm).111
In re Claim 13, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the projections have a width of about 0.15mm to about 1 mm. (see Wain, Col. 3, ll. 54-Col. 4, ll. 4, teaching the width of the teeth of 0.8mm)
In re Claim 15, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the projections have a length between about 0.3mm to about 1.5mm as measured from a front face of the projections to a rear face of the projections. (see Wain, Col. 4, ll. 56-63, teaching the length of not greater than 1.0mm).
In re Claim 17, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a pitch of the open slots is 0.20 mm to 1 mm (see Wain, Col. 2, ll. 25-32, teaching a pitch range of 0.7 to 1.2 mm).111
In re Claim 19, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the projections have a width of about 0.15mm to about 1 mm. (see Wain, Col. 3, ll. 54-Col. 4, ll. 4, teaching the width of the teeth of 0.8mm).
In re Claim 20, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the projections have a length between about 0.3mm to about 1.5mm as measured from a front face of the projections to a rear face of the projections. (see Wain, Col. 4, ll. 56-63, teaching the length of not greater than 1.0mm).
In re Claim 16, Ozenick teaches a razor cartridge comprising:
a housing (see Figs. 1-3, #30, et al) including a frame (see Figs. 1-3, #30, 35 al.) with a non-cutting element (see Fig. 3, #42/44/46), a guard (see Fig. 3, #52) and a cap (see Fig. 3, #54),
a first razor blade positioned between the guard and the non-cutting element (see Fig. 3, #18, between guard #52 and non-cutting element #46/44/42), the first razor blade having a blade edge extending toward the guard (see Fig. 3, #18), the non-cutting element is spaced apart from the first razor blade (see Fig. 3);
a second razor blade positioned between the non-cutting element and the cap (see Figs. 3A-B, showing two blades #32 between non-cutting element and cap #42), the second razor blade having a blade edge extending toward the guard (see Fig. 3A), the non-cutting element is spaced apart from the second razor blade (see Fig. 3A);
a first rinse-through gap between the first razor blade and the non-cutting element (see Fig. 3A, showing a gap between the blades of array #30 and the non-cutting element); a second rinse-through gap between the second razor blade and the non-cutting (see Fig. 3A, showing a gap between the blades of array #32 and the non-cutting element).
Ozenick does not teach the non-cutting element has a plurality of open slots defined between a pair of projections disposed next to each other;
a first rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm;
a second rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.6 mm;
a secondary span located between the non-cutting element and the blade edge of the first blade is about 0.5mm to about 2.0 mm;
a span between the non-cutting element and the blade edge of the second blade is about 0.01mm to about 1mm; and
a span between the blade edge of the first blade and the blade edge of the second blade is about 1.5mm to about 2.5mm.
However, Wain teaches that it is known to provide a non-cutting element that has a plurality of open slots defined between a pair of projections disposed next to each other (see Wain, Figs. 4-6, #9/8 which have projections and adjacent slots; see also Figs. 10-11). In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, replace the non-cutting element of Ozenick with the non-cutting element of Wain with the open slots and adjacent projections. Doing so improves the closeness of shave (see Wain, Col. 1, ll. 37 – Col. 2, ll. 16).
Additionally, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of spacing razor blades in razor cartridges to provide a gap of 0.5mm to 1.5mm between a non-cutting element and a cutting element (see Gilder, Fig. 1 and Para. 0016; see Gilder, Fig. 1, S1 ) and spacing razor blades to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0 (see Gilder, Para. 0016).
In the same field of invention, razor blade spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a first rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm; and a second rinse-through gap having a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.6 mm, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (se Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a span of between 0.5 and 2.0, as taught by Gilder. Doing so provide frictional drag forces kept at an acceptable level will allowing an improved shaving efficiency (se Gilder, Para. 0003-0006).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US2008/0072431 to Ozenick in view of US 5,802,721 to Wain and US 2003/0204955 to Gilder, in further in view of US 20030208907 A1 to Brown.
In re Claim 2, modified Ozenick does not teach wherein the frame is injection-molded to include the non-cutting element.
However, Brown teaches that it is known in the art to provide the frame is injection-molded to include the non-cutting element (see Brown, Fig. 13, #100 and Para. 0045-48 and abstract and 0009-0011). In the same field of invention, razor blade cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the carriage out of any known method, including injection molding, as taught by Brown. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Here, making the razor cartridge out of plastic injection-molded to include the non-cutting element.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US2008/0072431 to Ozenick in view of US 5,802,721 to Wain and US 2003/0204955 to Gilder, in further in view of US 2,139,680 to Heinrich.
In re Claim 3, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the range of the first rinse thru gap is about 0.1 mm to about 0.2 mm. However, Heinrich teaches that it is known to make a small razor (see Heinrich, teaching a miniature razor), for cutting hair in smaller areas of the body. In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to make the razor of modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, to make a smaller razor, such that the first rinse thru gap is about 0.1 mm to about 0.2 mm since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
In re Claim 14, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the projections have a width of about 0.2mm to about 0.3mm. However, Heinrich teaches that it is known to make a small razor (see Heinrich, teaching a miniature razor), for cutting hair in smaller areas of the body. In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to make the razor of modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1, to make a smaller razor, such that the projections have a width of about 0.2mm to about 0.3mm since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US2008/0072431 to Ozenick in view of US 5,802,721 to Wain and US 2003/0204955 to Gilder, in further in view of US 5,191,712 to Crook.
In re Claim 12, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1,does not teach wherein the projections have a height measured from a base of the non-cutting element to an upper surface the projection of about 0.25 mm to about 1 mm.
However, Crook teaches that it is known in the razor art to provide skin contacting projections having a height measured from a base of the non-cutting element to an upper surface the projection of about 0.25 mm to about 1 mm (see Crook, Fig. 8, and Col. 1, ll. 52-62, teaching projections having a height between 0.5-2.5mm). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the projections, of modified Ozenick, between 0.25-1.0mm from a base of the non-cutting element to an upper surface the projection.
In re Claim 18, modified Ozenick, in re Claim 1,does not teach wherein the projections have a height measured from a base of the non-cutting element to an upper surface the projection of about 0.25 mm to about 1 mm.
However, Crook teaches that it is known in the razor art to provide skin contacting projections having a height measured from a base of the non-cutting element to an upper surface the projection of about 0.25 mm to about 1 mm (see Crook, Fig. 8, and Col. 1, ll. 52-62, teaching projections having a height between 0.5-2.5mm). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the projections, of modified Ozenick, between 0.25-1.0mm from a base of the non-cutting element to an upper surface the projection. Doing so provides surfaces with configurations or textures designed to promote pleasant tactile sensations, in use of the razors, which tend to mask the sensations caused by contact of the blade edge(s) with the skin and more significantly with the facial hairs as they are severed – see Crook, Col. 1, ll. 17-24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 17-20 have obviated the prior claim objections.
Applicant’s terminal disclaimer, filed on 5-12-2025, was accepted. The prior double patenting rejections are moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 5-7-2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of “Ozenick.” This paper corrects the rejections by replacing the name “Howell” with “Ozenick.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights