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 .
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. It is unclear whether the present drawings illustrate the features of claim 10 because no “spring members” are indicated with a reference character in the present drawings. Therefore, the features of claim 10 should be shown in the present drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the features of claim 10 are shown in the drawings, then the “spring members” should be indicated with reference characters to make clear that these features are illustrated (see MPEP 608.01(o), explaining that in mechanical cases the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. It is unclear whether the present drawings illustrate the features of claims 1, 6, 9, and 11-13 because no “first blade member” or “second blade member” is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings. Therefore, the features of claims 1, 6, 9, and 11-13 should be shown in the present drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the features of claims 1, 6, 9, and 11-13 are shown in the drawings, then the “first blade member” or “second blade member” should be indicated with reference characters to make clear that these features are illustrated (see MPEP 608.01(o), explaining that in mechanical cases the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies). No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: no antecedent basis is provided in the specification for the “spring members” included in claim 10.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11 and 12 describe limitations relevant to a “first blade member” and “second blade member” which in the specification of the claimed invention are instead drawn to a “first blade” and a “second blade”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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, 9, 11, and 12 recite the limitations "the first blade member" and “the second blade member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the respective claims. Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected as depending on claim 1. Claims 13 and 19 recite the limitations "the first blade" and “the second blade”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the respective claims. Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected as depending on claim 13. Claim 20 recites the limitation “the first span”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 20 or claim 13, on which claim 20 depends. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the beams”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 17 or claim 13, on which claim 17 depends.
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.
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 1-12 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 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, 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 member, a width of the second blade member 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 member, a width of the second blade member 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." 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, 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 member to the cutting edge of the second blade member is 3 mm to 6 mm ([0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Walker further teaches the shaving razor cartridge of claim 1 wherein a position of the bridge member (Fig. 2A, Bridge Member 26) is fixed relative to the housing (Fig. 1, Housing 12) and the first (Fig. 2A, First Blade 18) and second blades (Fig. 2A, Second Blade 20) members are mounted on a pair of respective spring members (Fig. 3A, Spring Members 64 and 66) within the housing.
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 member and the cutting edge of the second blade member.
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 member and the cutting edge of the second blade member.
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 13 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 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), 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]).
Conclusion
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, 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724