DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4-5, 14 and 17 and the cancelation of claim 6.
Election of Species
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Species A-K do not pose a serious search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because while the Species of the instant invention are classified within adjacent classes each of the species require different structural details that require specific unique searches that have not been disclosed as useable together with another species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-5, 10, 13-14 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the election requirement in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Specifically, claim 3 includes the limitation “chamfered edge” which is drawn to non-elected Species C and claims 4-5 depend from claim 3. Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein the one or more blades extend along their largest dimension along a lateral axis… wherein the lateral axis is angled non-orthogonally with respect to the raised ridge plane” which is drawn to the angled blades of non-elected Species F. Claim 13 includes the limitation “wherein the unitary cartridge further comprises mounting plates extending from two of the plurality of raised ridges” which appears to be drawn to non-elected Species F. Claim 14 includes the limitation “wherein the first blade plane and second blade plane are not parallel to one another” which is drawn to non-elected Species K. And claim 16 includes the limitation “wherein the unitary cartridge body includes on its outer periphery a symbol indicative of the offset distance” which is drawn to non-elected Species F.
As the Examiner has required an election between species, once the claims are in a condition for allowance the Examiner may rejoin and fully examine the previously withdrawn claims drawn to the non-elected Species for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 (see MPEP 821.04(a) for rejoinder practice).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butlin, deceased et al. (US 5,318,429 A) in view of Bamundaga (US 2016/0082610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Butlin teaches a method for forming a razor cartridge (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12), the method comprising:
injecting a material into a mold to form a unitary cartridge body (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12) at least partially surrounding one or more blades (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; B, B1 and B2 ; Col. 5; lines 12-21), wherein the unitary cartridge body includes a plurality of raised ridges (Butlin; Fig. 1; 22) are configured to slide against a surface of a user's skin (Butlin; Col. 4; lines 47-61), and a cutting edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Butlin) below) of the one or more blades.
Butlin does not teach wherein the plurality of raised ridges are each configured to offset a cutting edge of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user's skin by an offset distance.
Bamundaga teaches a razor cartridge (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-7; 100) comprising: a unitary cartridge body (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-7; 102), one or more blades (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 116), and a plurality of raised ridges (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 118), wherein the plurality of raised ridges are each configured to offset the cutting edge (Bamundaga; P. 0028) of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user’s kin by an offset distance (Bamundaga; P. 0028). This helps to reduce skin inflammation (Bamundaga; P. 0006-0007 and 0016).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the plurality of raised ridges taught by Butlin such that the ridges provided an offset for the cutting edge of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user's skin by an offset distance like the raised ridges taught by Bamundaga as such an offset helps to reduce skin inflammation of a user’s skin caused by shaving.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 1.
Butlin in view of Bamundaga as modified does not teach wherein the plurality of raised ridges each have a curved outer peripheral surface configured to slide against the surface of the user's skin.
Bamundaga further teaches the plurality of raised ridges (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 118) each having a curved outer peripheral surface configured to slide against the surface of the user’s skin (Bamundaga; P. 0023). This helps to improve the comfort of the cartridge during shaving while also providing a way to angle the blade (Bamundaga; P. 0023 and 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to further modify the plurality of raised ridges taught by Butlin in view of Bamundaga such that the plurality of raised ridges each have a curved outer peripheral surface configured to slide against the surface of the user's skin like the raised ridges taught by Bamundaga as such changes in shape only require a routine level of skill for a worker in the art as such a modification would improve the comfort of the cartridge during shaving while also providing a way to angle the blade within the cartridge.
Regarding claim 15, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the offset distance is between 0.4 to 4 millimeters (Bamundaga; P. 0023).
Regarding claim 19, Butlin teaches a method for manufacturing a razor, comprising: arranging one or more blades (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; B, B1 and B2) in an interior cavity of a mold (Butlin; Col. 5; lines 12-21) and forming a unitary cartridge body around the one or more blades in the interior cavity of the mold with a single shot injection of material into the mold (Butlin; Col. 5 lines 12-21; Col. 9 line 61 – Col. 10 line 5), wherein the unitary cartridge body includes a plurality of raised ridges (Butlin; Fig. 1; 22) configured to slide against a surface of a user's skin (Butlin; Col. 4; lines 47-61).
Butlin does not teach wherein the unitary cartridge body includes a plurality of raised ridges configured to slide against a surface of a user's skin and thereby offset a cutting edge of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user's skin by an offset distance.
Bamundaga teaches a razor cartridge (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-7; 100) comprising: a unitary cartridge body (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-7; 102), one or more blades (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 116), and a plurality of raised ridges (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 118), wherein the plurality of raised ridges are each configured to offset the cutting edge (Bamundaga; P. 0028) of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user’s kin by an offset distance (Bamundaga; P. 0028). This helps to reduce skin inflammation (Bamundaga; P. 0006-0007 and 0016).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the plurality of raised ridges taught by Butlin such that the ridges provided an offset for the cutting edge of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user's skin by an offset distance like the raised ridges taught by Bamundaga as such an offset helps to reduce skin inflammation of a user’s skin caused by shaving.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butlin (US 5,318,429 A) in view of Bamundaga (US 2016/0082610 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lam (US 2018/0192757 A1) and Armstrong (US 2005/0060894 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 1.
Butlin in view of Bamundaga does not teach the method further comprising: sharpening the cutting edge of each of the one or more blades between the plurality of raised ridges.
Lam teaches a method for sharpening the cutting edge of each of the one or more blades of a razor (Lam; P. 0052) within a cartridge (Lam; Fig. 1; 22) by insertion into a sharpening device (Lam; Fig. 1; 10). This is advantageous as sharp razor blades provide a cleaner shave and sharpening allows for an optimum cutting angle to be provided for the blade (Lam; P. 0005-0006).
Armstrong teaches a cutting device (Armstrong; Figs. 1-4) made by injection molding (Armstrong; P. 0022) about a blade (Armstrong; Figs. 1-2; 15) and a method comprising sharpening the cutting edge of each of the one or more blades between the plurality of raised ridges (Armstrong; P. 0022; see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Armstrong) below). While the device of Armstrong is different from the instant invention, Armstrong is similar to the instant invention in the method of providing a blade within a material that is injection molded and seeks to solve a similar issue as the instant invention, namely how to sharpen blades after forming a structure about the blade including raised protrusions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the method taught by Butlin in view of Bamundaga such that the method further included sharpening the cutting edge of each of the one or more blades like the method taught by Lam and doing so between the plurality of raised ridges as evidenced by Armstrong as sharpening the cutting edge of the one or more blades allows for sharp razor blades that provide a cleaner shave and for an optimum cutting angle to be provided for the blade.
PNG
media_image2.png
328
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8, 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butlin (US 5,318,429 A) in view of Bamundaga (US 2016/0082610 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Olson (US 5,600,887 A).
Regarding claim 7, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the unitary cartridge body (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12) is configured to attach to a handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Butlin) above).
Butlin in view of Bamundaga does not teach the unitary cartridge body rotates around pivot protrusions of the handle.
Olson teaches a cartridge body (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 16) configured to attach to a handle (Olson; Figs. 1-4; 12), wherein the cartridge body rotates pivot protrusions (Olson; Fig. 2; 20) of the handle (Olson; Col. 2 line 65 – Col. 3 line 14). This allows for the razor to adapt to the changing contours of a user’s face (Olson; Col. 2; lines 53-64).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the unitary cartridge body taught by Butlin in view of Bamundaga such that the unitary cartridge body rotates around pivot protrusions of the handle like the cartridge body and handle taught by Olson as such an arrangement allows for the razor to adapt to the changing contours of a user’s face.
Regarding claim 8, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the unitary cartridge body (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12) and the handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Butlin) above) are formed with the same material, the handle taught by Butlin is formed with the cartridge and would be made of the same material as the cartridge (Butlin; Col. 9 line 61 – Col. 10 line 5).
Regarding claim 11, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 1.
Butlin in view of Bamundaga does not teach wherein the unitary cartridge body further comprises circular openings arranged opposite the plurality of raised ridges with respect to the one or more blades, and wherein the circular openings are configured to receive protrusions of a handle, the protrusions protruding from the handle in opposite directions relative to one another.
Olson teaches a cartridge body (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 16) comprising: circular openings (Olson; Fig. 2; 14) arranged on a back side (Olson; Fig. 2; 15), as best understood the limitation “arranged opposite the plurality of raised ridges with respect to the one or more blades” is the back side or the side opposite the razor blades which is the same as the side taught by Olson, wherein the circular opening are configured to receive protrusions (Olson; Fig. 2; 20) of a handle (Olson; Figs. 1-4; 12), the protrusions protruding from the handle in opposite directions relative to one another (Olson; Fig. 2; 20). This allows for the razor to adapt to the changing contours of a user’s face (Olson; Col. 2; lines 53-64).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the unitary cartridge body and handle taught by Butlin in view of Bamundaga such that the unitary cartridge body further comprised circular openings arranged opposite the plurality of raised ridges with respect to the one or more blades, and wherein the circular openings are configured to receive protrusions of a handle, the protrusions protruding from the handle in opposite directions relative to one another like the cartridge body and handle taught by Olson as such an arrangement allows for the razor to adapt to the changing contours of a user’s face.
Regarding claim 12, Butlin in view of Bamundaga and Olson teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the cartridge (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12) is configured to pivot about the protrusions of the handle (Olson; Col. 2 line 65 – Col. 3 line 14).
Regarding claim 20, Butlin in view of Bamundaga teaches the method according to claim 19, further comprising arranging the unitary cartridge body (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12) on a handle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Butlin) above).
Butlin in view of Bamundaga does not teach wherein the handle comprises forked prongs with protrusions extending away from one another, wherein the unitary cartridge body includes openings configured to receive the protrusions, and wherein arranging the unitary cartridge body on the handle comprises bending the forked prongs toward one another such that the protrusions move toward one another, and subsequently releasing the forked prongs such that the protrusions move into the openings of the unitary cartridge body.
Olson teaches a cartridge body (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 16) and a handle (Olson; Figs. 1-4; 12); wherein the handles comprises forked prongs (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 18) with protrusions (Olson; Fig. 2; 20) extending away from one another, wherein the cartridge body includes openings (Olson; Fig. 2; 14) configured to receive the protrusions (Olson; Col. 2 line 65 – Col. 3 line 15), and wherein arranging the cartridge body on the handle comprises bending the forked prongs toward one another such that the protrusions move toward one another (Olson; Col. 3; lines 16-34), and subsequently releasing the forked prongs such that the protrusions move into the openings of the unitary cartridge body (Olson; Col. 3; lines 16-34). Such an arrangement allows for easier cleaning of the cartridge (Olson; Col. 3; lines 35-43).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the unitary cartridge body and handle taught by Butlin in view of Bamundaga such that the handle comprises forked prongs with protrusions extending away from one another, wherein the unitary cartridge body includes openings configured to receive the protrusions, and wherein arranging the unitary cartridge body on the handle comprises bending the forked prongs toward one another such that the protrusions move toward one another, and subsequently releasing the forked prongs such that the protrusions move into the openings of the unitary cartridge body like the cartridge body and handle taught by Olson as such an arrangement allows for easier cleaning of the cartridge.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 5,600,887 A) in view of Butlin (US 5,318,429 A), Bamundaga (US 2016/0082610 A1) and Kole et al. (US 2019/0134833 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Olson teaches a method for interchanging cartridges in a razor assembly, comprising:
providing a first razor cartridge (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 16) and a second razor cartridge (Olson; Col. 1; lines 13-28);
providing a handle (Olson; Figs. 1-4; 12) attached to the first razor cartridge (Olson; Figs. 1-4; 12 and 16);
removing the first razor cartridge from the handle (Olson; Col. 3; lines 16-34); and
attaching a second razor cartridge to the handle (Olson; Col. 1; lines 13-28), it should be noted that while Olson does not specifically teach a second razor cartridge Olson does teach that replacement of a cartridge which would require a second cartridge.
Olson does not teach the first and second razor cartridges each being formed by injecting a material into a mold to form a unitary cartridge body at least partially surrounding one or more blades, wherein each unitary cartridge body includes a plurality of raised ridges are configured to slide against a surface of a user's skin and to offset a cutting edge of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user's skin by an offset distance, and wherein the first razor cartridge has a different offset distance than the second razor cartridge.
Butlin teaches a razor cartridge (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; 12) being formed by injecting a material into a mold to form a unitary cartridge body at least partially surrounding one or more blades (Butlin; Figs. 1-2; B, B1 and B2 ; Col. 5; lines 12-21). Such a method of manufacturing of a razor cartridge provides an inexpensive process to manufacture high quality razor cartridges (Butlin; Col. 11; lines 36-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the cartridge bodies taught by Olson such that they were unitary cartridge bodies formed by injecting a material into a mold to form a unitary cartridge body at least partially surrounding one or more blades like the unitary cartridge body taught by Butlin as producing cartridges in such a way provides an inexpensive process to manufacture high quality razor cartridges.
Bamundaga teaches a razor cartridge (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-7; 100) comprising: a unitary cartridge body (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-7; 102), one or more blades (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 116), and a plurality of raised ridges (Bamundaga; Figs. 1-6; 118) configured to slide against a surface of a user's skin (Bamundaga; P. 0025), wherein the plurality of raised ridges are each configured to offset the cutting edge (Bamundaga; P. 0028) of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user’s kin by an offset distance (Bamundaga; P. 0028). This helps to reduce skin inflammation (Bamundaga; P. 0006-0007 and 0016).
Kole teaches a set of detachable guards (Kole; Figs. 14A-14D) comprising pluralities of raised ridges configured to slide against a surface of a user’s skin (Kole; P. 0073) and to offset a cutting edge of each of the one or more blades from the surface of the user’s skin by an offset distance (Kole; P. 0072), wherein each guard has a different offset distance than the second razor cartridge (Kole; P. 0072). This allows for different lengths of hair to remain after shaving (Kole; P. 0072).
As Bamundaga shows that it is known in the art to vary the offset distance of a plurality of raised ridges for a unitary cartridge body and as evidenced by Kole it is known in the art to provide a set of guards with a plurality of raised ridges featuring different offset distances, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the cartridge bodies taught by Olson to include a plurality of raised ridges like those taught by Bamundaga and for the cartridge bodies to have a different offset distance from each other as evidenced by Kole as such a modification helps to reduce skin inflammation while also allowing for different lengths of hair to remain after shaving.
Regarding claim 18, Olson in view of Butlin, Bamundaga and Kole teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein removing the first razor cartridge (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 16) includes bending opposing forked prongs (Olson; Figs. 1-7; 18) of the handle (Olson; Figs. 1-4; 12) toward one another such that pivot protrusions (Olson; Fig. 2; 20) of the handle are withdrawn from corresponding openings (Olson; Fig. 2; 14) of the first razor cartridge (Olson; Col. 3; lines 16-34); and wherein attaching the second razor cartridge includes bending the opposing forked prongs of the handle toward one another and subsequently releasing the opposing forked prongs such that they are inserted into corresponding openings of the second razor cartridge (Olson; Col. 3; lines 16-34).
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the election of species is improper and traversed the requirement asserting that the species do not pose a serious search burden to the Examiner. The Examiner disagrees, while each of the identified species are in closely related classes and CPC areas each will require specific and unique searches and has not disclosed the species as being usable together. Further, this does not place a burden on the applicant as any withdrawn claims due to this election of species may be rejoined upon an indication of allowable subject matter. As such the claims directed to the nonelected species have been withdrawn according to MPEP 806.04(f) which states: where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. This may also be expressed by saying that to require restriction between claims limited to species, the claims must not overlap in scope. Therefore, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights