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 amendment filed February 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the drawings, the specification, the claims, and the 112(b) rejections and maintains the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 4th, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/13/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 11/4/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 uses both “bridge” and “bridge member” seemingly to refer to the same item described in the specification and drawings, creating confusion as to if they refer to the same element or two separate elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a bridge” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 references “a bridge”, while no “bridge” is described in the specification or shown in the drawings.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter
which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to
which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 defines that the sum of one group of dimensions is greater than the sum of another
group, however this is never set forth in the specification of the claimed invention. Further, a
width of the first blade member and the second blade member is never defined in the
specification, so the relationship between the sum of the two groups cannot be inferred.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11 recite the limitation "the bridge member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret that “the bridge member” refers to previously introduced “a bridge” in light of the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent Paul Walker, JR (US 20180345512 A1 – hereinafter Walker) in view of Alan Blatter et al. (US 20210245378 A1 – hereinafter Blatter) and Bernard Gilder et al. (US 6216349 B1 – hereinafter Gilder).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a shaving razor cartridge comprising: a housing (Fig.
1, Housing 12) having a primary guard (Fig. 2A, Primary Guard 14) at a front of the housing, a
secondary cap (Fig. 2A, Secondary Cap 16) at a rear of the housing; a bridge (Fig. 2A, Bridge Member 26) positioned between the primary guard and the secondary cap, the bridge having a primary cap (Fig. 2A, Primary Cap 28) and a secondary guard (Fig. 2A, Secondary Guard 30); a first blade (Fig. 2A, First Blade 18) mounted to the housing between the primary guard and the primary cap, the first blade member having a first cutting edge closest to the primary guard; a first gap (Fig. 2A, the gap obtained from subtracting W2 and S3 from S1) extending from the first blade to the bridge member of 0.7 mm to 2.7 mm ([0028] and [0029] - based on preferred values for W2, S3, and S1); a second blade (Fig. 2A, Second Blade 20) mounted to the housing between the secondary guard and the secondary cap, the second blade member having a second cutting edge closest to the secondary cap, wherein there is a first span (Fig. 2A, S2) from the cutting edge of the first blade to the primary guard and a second span (Fig. 2A, S3) from the cutting edge of the second blade to the secondary guard. Walker does not teach that the first gap is 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm, however it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first gap of Walker to be 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being cut below the skin surface ([0029]), and additionally identifies S1 as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to prevent cuts and nicks. Since the first gap is directly dependent on and is a byproduct of these two result effectives variables, it would have been obvious to reach a first gap of 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm after optimizing S1 and W2.
Walker fails to teach a second gap extending from the second blade to a front face of the
secondary cap a distance of 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm, that the first span is greater than or equal to 1.0
mm, and that the second span is greater than 0.60 mm.
However, Gilder teaches a second gap (Fig. 1, S4) extending from a second blade (Fig. 1,
Blade 13) to a front face of a secondary cap (Fig. 1, Cap 3) at a distance of 1.8 mm (Col. 3, lines
34-35), and that a first span (Fig. 1, S1) is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (Col. 3, lines 28-29). It would have
been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the second gap of
Gilder to be 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm and the first span of Gilder to be greater than or equal to 1.05
mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions
of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation." Gilder identifies S1 and S4 as result effective variables
which need to be optimized to create acceptable exposure of the blades (Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker to include a second gap extending from the second blade
to a front face of the secondary cap a distance of 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm, and such that the first
span is greater than or equal to 1.0 mm as taught by Gilder. Doing so is beneficial as the spans
directly influence a proper blade exposure (Gilder; Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Additionally, Blatter teaches a second span (Fig. 8, 48) of 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm ([0035]). It
would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the
second span of Blatter to be greater than 0.60 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Blatter
identifies 48 as result effective variables which need to be optimized to provide functional
shaving performance (Blatter; [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker and Gilder such that the second span is greater than 0.60
mm as taught by Blatter. Doing so is beneficial as the second span directly influences functional
shave performance (Blatter; [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a width of the bridge member (Fig. 2A, W2; [0029] – W2 is 1.75 mm to 4 mm) is
greater than the first span (Fig. 2A, S2; [0028] - 0.5 mm to 0.8 mm).
Regarding claim 3, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a width of the bridge member (Fig. 2A, W2; [0029] – W2 is 1.75 mm to 4 mm) is
greater than the second span (Fig. 2A, S3; [0028] - 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a width of the bridge member 1.75 mm to 4 mm (Fig. 2A, W2; [0029] – W2 is 1.75 mm
to 4 mm). While Walker does not teach that the width of the bridge member is 1.0 mm to 2.25
mm, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify
the width of the bridge member of Walker to be 1.0 mm to 2.25 mm as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable
which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being
cut below the skin surface ([0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a width of the bridge member 1.75 mm to 4 mm (Fig. 2A, W2; [0029] – W2 is 1.75 mm
to 4 mm). While Walker does not teach that the width of the bridge member is 1.0 mm to 1.25
mm, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify
the width of the bridge member of Walker to be 1.0 mm to 1.25 mm as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable
which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being
cut below the skin surface ([0029]).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter fails to teach
the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1 wherein a sum of a width of the first blade, a width of the second blade and a width of the bridge member is less than a sum of the first gap, the second gap, the first span and the second span.
However, Blatter further teaches a shaving cartridge wherein a sum of a width of the first
blade, a width of the second blade and a width of the bridge member is less than a sum of the first gap, the second gap, the first span and the second span (Fig. 8. “a width of the first blade” and “a width of the second blade” is interpreted as a thickness of the each of the blades, and it is not provided, but it can be logically assumed that the thickness of the blades are less than distance 62, so distance 62 is substituted for the thickness of the blades. The second gap is unknown, but it can be logically assumed that it must be greater than distance 62 (since it includes the distance 62), so 62 is substituted for the second gap. Similarly, the first span is unknown, however the sum of a width of the first blade member (37) with the substituted width
of the thickness of the two blades is less than the sum of the first gap (60 minus 37 minus 48),
the substituted value second gap, and the second span (48) even without the first span added in,
so it would still be less than the sum of all four. Calculations were based on the preferred values
for all distances, ending with a range of 3.12 mm to 3.32 mm for the sum of the width of the
bridge member and the two blades’ thicknesses, and a minimum of 3.48 mm for the sum of all
the gaps and spans ([0032]-[0035])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of the combination of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter to include the
limitations of claim 6 above as taught by Blatter. Doing so is beneficial as the values of the
variety of gaps and spans which define the sums of the two groups directly influence the
avoidance of discomfort during shaving (Blatter; [0032]) and functional shaving performance
(Blatter; [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter does not
teach the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1 wherein the second span is 0.80 to 1.0 mm.
However, Blatter teaches a second span (Fig. 8, 48) of 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm ([0035]). It
would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the
second span of Blatter to be 0.80 mm to 1.0 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Blatteridentifies 48 as result effective variables which need to be optimized to provide functional
shaving performance (Blatter; [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter such that the second span is 0.80 to
1.0 mm as taught by Blatter. Doing so is beneficial as the second span directly influences
functional shave performance (Blatter; [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter already
teaches a first gap and a second gap (See the rejection of claim 1 above). The existing
combination of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter does not teach wherein the first gap is 0.60 mm to
1.25 and the second gap is 0.60 mm to 1.25 mm, however Walker teaches a first gap (Fig. 2A,
the gap obtained from subtracting W2 and S3 from S1) extending from the first blade to the
bridge member of 0.7 mm to 2.7 mm ([0028] and [0029] – based on preferred values for W2, S3,
and S1). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the first gap of Walker to be 0.60 mm to 1.25 mm as a matter of routine optimization
since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable which needs to be
optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being cut below the skin
surface ([0029]), and additionally identifies S1 as a result effective variable which needs to be
optimized to prevent cuts and nicks. Since the first gap is directly dependent on and is a
byproduct of these two result effectives variables, it would have been obvious to reach a first gap
of 0.60 mm to 1.25 mm after optimizing S1 and W2.
Additionally, Gilder teaches a second gap (Fig. 1, S4) extending from a second blade
(Fig. 1, Blade 13) to a front face of a secondary cap (Fig. 1, Cap 3) at a distance of 1.8 mm (Col.
3, lines 34-35). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
to modify the second gap of Gilder to be 0.60 mm to 1.25 mm as a matter of routine optimization
since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Gilder identifies S4 as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to create
acceptable exposure of the blades (Gilder; Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker, Gilder, and Blatter to include a second gap extending
from the second blade to a front face of the secondary cap a distance of 0.60 mm to 1.25 mm as
taught by Gilder. Doing so is beneficial as the span directly influences a proper blade exposure
(Gilder; Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Regarding claim 9, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a span (Fig. 2A, S1) from the cutting edge of the first blade to the cutting edge of the second blade is 3 mm to 6 mm ([0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a top surface (Fig. 2A, Top Surface 32) of the bridge member is positioned above a
plane (Fig. 2A, plane P2) tangent to the cutting edge of the first blade and the cutting edge of the second blade.
Regarding claim 12, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a top surface of the primary guard (Fig. 2A, Primary Guard 14) is positioned above a
plane (Fig. 2A, plane P2) tangent to the cutting edge of the first blade and the cutting edge of the second blade.
Claims 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Vincent Paul Walker, JR (US 20180345512 A1 – hereinafter Walker) in view of Bernard
Gilder et al. (US 6216349 B1 – hereinafter Gilder).
Regarding claim 13, Walker further teaches a shaving razor cartridge comprising: a
housing (Fig. 1, Housing 12) having a primary guard (Fig. 2A, Primary Guard 14) at a front of
the housing, a secondary cap (Fig. 2A, Secondary Cap 16) at a rear of the housing; a bridge
member (Fig. 2A, Bridge Member 26) positioned between the primary guard and the secondary
cap, the bridge member having a primary cap (Fig. 2A, Primary Cap 28) and a secondary guard
(Fig. 2A, Secondary Guard 30); a first blade (Fig. 2A, First Blade 18) mounted to the housing
between the primary guard and the primary cap, the first blade member having a first cutting
edge closest to the primary guard; a first gap (Fig. 2A, the gap obtained from subtracting W2 and
S3 from S1) extending from the first blade to the bridge member of 0.7 mm to 2.7 mm ([0028]
and [0029] – based on preferred values for W2, S3, and S1); a second blade (Fig. 2A, Second
Blade 20) mounted to the housing between the secondary guard and the secondary cap, the
second blade member having a second cutting edge closest to the secondary cap. Walker does
not teach that the first gap is 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm, however it would have been obvious to one or
ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first gap of Walker to be 0.70 mm to
1.25 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." Walker identifies the width of the bridge member
as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry
and prevent hair from being cut below the skin surface ([0029]), and additionally identifies S1 as
a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to prevent cuts and nicks. Since the first
gap is directly dependent on and is a byproduct of these two result effectives variables, it would
have been obvious to reach a first gap of 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm after optimizing S1 and W2.
Walker fails to teach a second gap extending from the second blade to a front face of the
secondary cap a distance of 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm.
However, Gilder teaches a second gap (Fig. 1, S4) extending from a second blade (Fig. 1,
Blade 13) to a front face of a secondary cap (Fig. 1, Cap 3) at a distance of 1.8 mm (Col. 3, lines
34-35). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the second gap of Gilder to be 0.70 mm to 1.25 as a matter of routine optimization since
it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Gilder
identifies S4 as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to create acceptable
exposure of the blades (Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker to include a second gap extending from the second blade
to a front face of the secondary cap a distance of 0.70 mm to 1.25 mm as taught by Gilder. Doing
so is beneficial as the spans directly influence a proper blade exposure (Gilder; Col. 2, lines 5-
23).
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Walker and Gilder does not teach the
shaving razor cartridge of claim 13 wherein a first span from the cutting edge of the first blade to
the primary guard is greater than a second span from the cutting edge of the second blade to the
secondary guard. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker such that
the first span is greater than the second span since it has been held that “where the only
difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the
claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform
differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior
art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker would not
operate differently with the claimed relative spans and the device would function appropriately
having the claimed relative spans. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the
relative dimensions claimed, indicating simply that the first span “may” be greater than the
second span (specification page 9 para 2).
Regarding claim 20, the existing combination of Walker and Gilder does not teach the
shaving razor cartridge of claim 19 wherein the first span is greater than or equal to 1.05 mm.
However, Gilder further teaches that a first span (Fig. 1, S1) is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (Col. 3,
lines 28-29). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the first span of Gilder to be greater than or equal to 1.05 mm as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." Gilder identifies S1 as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized
to create acceptable exposure of the blades (Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker such that the first span is greater than or equal to 1.0 mm
as taught by Gilder. Doing so is beneficial as the span directly influences a proper blade
exposure (Gilder; Col. 2, lines 5-23).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent Paul
Walker, JR (US 20180345512 A1 – hereinafter Walker) in view of Bernard Gilder et al.
(US 6216349 B1 – hereinafter Gilder) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of
Oliver Oglesby et al. (US 20120317818 A1 – hereinafter Oglesby).
Regarding claim 14, the existing combination of Walker and Gilder fails to teach the
shaving razor cartridge of claim 13 wherein the first gap is less than a first span extending from
primary guard to the first cutting edge.
However, Oglesby teaches a shaving razor wherein a first gap (Fig. 2, 23a; [0045] - 0.1
mm to 0.2 mm) is less than a first span (Fig. 2, span between 13b and 16a, including the distance
24 of 0.95 mm; [0048]) extending from primary guard to the first cutting edge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker and Gilder such that a first span is less than a first span as
taught by Oglesby. Doing so is beneficial as the first gap is sized such that it can contain any
excess debris and avoid clogging blades further back (Oglesby; [0046]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent Paul
Walker, JR (US 20180345512 A1 – hereinafter Walker) in view of Bernard Gilder et al.
(US 6216349 B1 – hereinafter Gilder) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of
Oliver Claus et al. (US 12023821 B2 – hereinafter Claus).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Walker and Gilder fails to teach the
shaving razor cartridge of claim 13 wherein the second gap is less than a second span extending
from secondary guard to the second cutting edge.
However, Claus teaches a shaving razor cartridge wherein a second gap (Fig. 3, distance
between Blade 18c and Cap 22, which is less than the sum of 84 (0.25 mm to 0.6 mm; Col. 6,
lines 64-67) and the length of 70 (0.4 to 0.9 mm; Col. 7, lines 58-59), which is a maximum value
of 1.5 mm) is less than a second span (Fig. 3, the sum of S2 (2 mm to 2.5 mm; Col. 8, lines 14-
15) and 80 (0.25 mm to 0.6 mm; Col. 6, lines 61-62), which is a minimum value of 2.25 mm,
with 50 being the bridge member) extending from secondary guard to the second cutting edge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker and Gilder such that the second gap is less than a second
span as taught by Claus. Doing so is beneficial as the second gap is sized such that there is no
interference between the gap and other items in the housing (Claus; Col. 7, lines 55-58).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent
Paul Walker, JR (US 20180345512 A1 – hereinafter Walker) in view of Bernard Gilder et
al. (US 6216349 B1 – hereinafter Gilder) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view
of Jack Washington (EP 3072647 A1 – hereinafter Washington).
Regarding claim 16, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 13
wherein the housing comprises a pair of side supports (Fig. 1, Clips 34a and 34b).
The existing combination of Walker and Gilder fails to teach a plurality of spaced apart
beams positioned between the pair of side supports that support the bridge member.
However, Washington teaches a shaving razor cartridge with a plurality of spaced apart
beams (Fig. 3, Support Members 66, 68, 70, and 72) positioned between the pair of side supports
(Fig. 3, Clips 62 and 64) that support the bridge member (examiner interprets this to be a
statement of intended use and find that the spaced apart beams of Washington would be capable
of and located in a position which allows for supporting the bridge member of Walker) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker and Gilder to include a plurality of spaced apart beams
positioned between the pair of side supports that support the bridge member as taught by
Washington. Doing so is beneficial as the spaced apart beams support features within the
housing while allowing water to rinse through and prevent the clogging of the blades
(Washington; [0013]).
Regarding claim 17, the existing combination of Walker and Gilder fails to teach the
shaving razor cartridge of claim 13 wherein the housing has a plurality of beams that support the bridge member, at least two of the beams are spaced apart by 5 mm to 10 mm.
However, Washington teaches a shaving razor cartridge with a plurality of spaced apart
beams (Fig. 3, Support Members 66, 68, 70, and 72) that support the bridge member (examiner interprets this to be a statement of intended use and find that the spaced apart beams of Washington would be capable of and located in a position which allows for supporting the bridge member of Walker), at least two of the beams being spaced apart by 4.0 mm to 10.0 mm ([0020). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the distance between two beams of Washington to be 5.0 mm to 10.0 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Washington identifies the distance between the beams as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to minimize deflection of the blades during shaving (Washington; [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor of Walker and to include the features of claim 17 above as taught by
Washington. Doing so is beneficial as the distance between the spaced apart beams work to
minimize deflection of the blades during shaving (Washington; [0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1
wherein a width of the bridge member 1.75 mm to 4 mm (Fig. 2A, W2; [0029] – W2 is 1.75 mm
to 4 mm). While Walker does not teach that the width of the bridge member is 1.0 mm to 2.25
mm, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify
the width of the bridge member of Walker to be 1.0 mm to 2.25 mm as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable
which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being
cut below the skin surface ([0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection of claim 6, a blade width was not defined in the disclosure, nor is the blade at any point defined as being “conventional” or having a conventional width in the disclosure as is stated in the Applicant’s arguments. Due to this, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Therefore, the 112(a) rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Regarding claims 1-12, Applicant argues that the routine optimization rejection is based on impermissible hindsight since the unique shaving geometry combination allows for the cutting of longer hair and provides a wide channel for washing these hairs away. Further, Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art documents to justify these routine optimizations. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being cut below the skin surface ([0029]); Gilder identifies the second gap and first span as result effective variables which need to be optimized to create acceptable exposure of the blades (Col. 2, lines 5-23); and Blatter
identifies a second span as result effective variables which need to be optimized to provide functional shaving performance (Blatter; [0035]). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., unique shaving geometry combination which specifically allows for the cutting of longer hair and provides a wide channel for washing these hairs away) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 13 and 19-20, Applicant argues that the routine optimization rejection is based on impermissible hindsight since the unique shaving geometry combination allows for the cutting of longer hair. Further, Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art documents to justify these routine optimizations. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being cut below the skin surface ([0029]) and Gilder identifies the second gap and first span as result effective variables which need to be optimized to create acceptable exposure of the blades (Col. 2, lines 5-23). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., unique shaving geometry combination which specifically allows for the cutting of longer hair) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant additionally argues that the first span being greater than the second span is a critical limitation in claim 19 with a specific technical advantage, since the first span being “larger” is shown to be advantageous in the specification and the second span being “smaller” is additionally beneficial. While it is true that these benefits are shown in the specification for the first span and the second span separately, there is no benefit or criticality defined that comes directly from this relationship between the first span and the second span where the first span is greater than the second span. A benefit from one being subjectively “larger” or “smaller” on its own does not teach any benefit which would give criticality to this relationship. Gilder and Walker are not required to provide teaching or motivation for this modification, as the relationship is not shown to have criticality in the specification.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Oglesby teaches away from the solution of the present invention because Oglesby has a small first gap, and that impermissible hindsight is used to combine Oglesby with Walker and Gilder. In this case, Oglesby does not teach away as "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed” in re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The disclosure of Oglesby does not suggest that the alternative values do not allow for shaving of long body hair, and instead suggests that a first hap of their embodiment can contain any excess debris and avoid clogging blades further back (Oglesby; [0046]), avoiding clogging stated by applicant as being an important solution in their claimed invention. It is clear that the small gap of Oglesby would not exacerbate the problem of clogging hair as the gap in Oglesby is specifically disclosed to help with clogging, as mentioned previously, and this is also the motivation for combining Oglesby with Walker and Gilder. There is no indication that the range of Oglesby is in any way too small for the claimed solution outside of Applicant’s assertations. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that the benefit stated as motivation to combine Claus with Walker and Guilder constitutes impermissible hindsight bias because it would not apply to the Applicant’s structure and invention. Applicant argues that 50 cannot be considered a bridge member because there are additional bridge member-like structures and blade sets present. However, the plain meaning of claim 15 and all claims from which it depends does not exclude the presence of additional structures such as or similar to bridge members and blade sets. The presence of additional features in a different area of Claus does not discount item 50 from being considered as a bridge member. Preventing interference is relevant to the claimed invention as Claus shows clearly analogous structure shown to be situated similarly to the those analogous features of the claimed invention, as can be seen in Fig. 4a of Claus and Fig. 2 of the claimed invention, and is therefore adequate motivation used in modifying Gilder/ Walker in view of Claus. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that non-obvious reconstruction is required to relocate the beams taught by Washington such that they support the bridge member of Walker/ Gilder. Washington teaches a clear benefit to incorporating beams under any structure (as the spaced apart beams support features within the housing while allowing water to rinse through and prevent the clogging of the blades (Washington; [0013]). Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the location of a feature such as the beams as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The bridge member would still function as claimed, with the added benefit of allowing water through for rinsing. The plain meaning of the claim language does not require that the beams prevent flexing of the bridge member. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that the use of routine optimization to change the range of 4 mm – 10 mm to 5 mm – 10 mm would be improper since no motivation is given. However, Washington identifies the distance between the beams as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to minimize deflection of the blades during shaving (Washington; [0021]). In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that there is no teaching or motivation in Guilder, Walker, or Washington to modify the range of Walker with the use of routine optimization reasoning. A stated in the rejection of claim 18 above, Walker identifies the width of the bridge member as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to establish proper shaving geometry and prevent hair from being cut below the skin surface ([0029]).
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
