DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10: “the other surface of the first elongated portion” lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to read “a second surface of the first elongated portion”
Claim 12: “the other surface opposite to one surface of the third elongated portion” lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to read “a second surface opposite to one surface of the third elongated portion”
Claim 16: “the top surface of the cover housing” lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to read “a top surface of the cover housing”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200316798) in view of Prochaska (EP 2707181).
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses a razor cartridge (razor cartridge 10; see figs. 1A-2), comprising: a blade housing (base 30; see figs. 1A-2) configured to accommodate at least one razor blade comprising a cutting edge (blades 24a-24c, which comprise cutting edges 26a-26c, are mounted to base 30; see paragraphs [0016-0017] and fig. 2) in a longitudinal direction (blades 24a-24c are mounted in a longitudinal direction along length L1; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 2), the blade housing comprising a top surface toward which the cutting edge faces (base 30 comprises top surfaces 36, 37 which cutting edges 26a-26c face; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 2) and a bottom surface opposing the top surface (base 30 comprises a bottom surface which is opposite top surfaces 36, 37; see fig. 2); a clip (clips 28a, 28b; see fig. 2) comprising: a clip body (the central, horizontal portion of clips 28a, 28b; see fig. 2) disposed on the top surface and configured to retain the at least one razor blade in the blade housing (the clip body of clips 28a, 28b are located on top surfaces 36, 37 and aid in retaining blades 24a-24c; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 2), a first elongated portion extending from the clip body toward the bottom surface (clips 28a, 28b each have a first elongated portion extending in a vertical direction from the clip body towards the bottom surface; see fig. 2), and a cover housing (cage 32; see fig. 2) configured to be combined with the blade housing in a direction from the top surface to the bottom surface (cage 32 is configured to be mounted to base 30 in a direction from top surfaces 36, 37 towards the bottom of base 30; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 2).
Walker does not explicitly disclose a second elongated portion extending from one end of the first elongated portion in a direction away from the center of the clip body; wherein the second elongated portion is disposed between the blade housing and the cover housing.
Prochaska discloses a second elongated portion extending from one end of the first elongated portion in a direction away from the center of the clip body (the second elongated portion extends from an end of the first elongated portion, away from the central portion 60 in a vertical direction; see annotated portion of fig. 9 below); wherein the second elongated portion is disposed between the blade housing and the cover housing (as modified, the second elongated portion of the clip would be located between the blade housing and the cover housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Walker in view of Prochaska to include a clip with a second elongated portion. Prochaska discloses that inclusion of a second elongated portion (as part of the Z-shape portion 78) allows retainer 50 to be held within opening 30 via compressive force. In this configuration, retainer 50 has increased holdability and hold life (see paragraph [0031]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the device of Walker could be improved using this configuration since the retainer of Walker only has a first elongated portion, and thus does not provide increased security to the blades. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Walker to have the retainer configuration of Prochaska, since it would result in the blades being retained more securely for longer.
Regarding claim 2, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Walker as modified further discloses wherein a position of the clip is fixed by combining the blade housing and the cover housing (clips 28a, 28b are received within openings 38a, 38b of cage 32 such that their position is fixed relative to base 30; see paragraph [0017] and figs. 1A-2).
Regarding claim 3, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein the first elongated portion and the second elongated portion are formed by combining the blade housing and the cover housing (when Z-shape portion 78 is inserted into opening 30, it is compressed by walls 32, 34 such that the operational shape of retainer 50 is formed. As modified, wall 32 is formed by cage 32 of Walker, and wall 34 is formed by base 30 of Walker; see paragraph [0031] and fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Walker as modified further discloses wherein at least a portion of the clip body is exposed to the outside on the top surface (at least a portion of the clip body of clips 28a, 28b is exposed to the outside of razor cartridge 10 on the top surface; see figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein one end of the first elongated portion and one end of the second elongated portion are disposed between the top and bottom surfaces (as modified, the first elongated portion and second elongated portion are disposed between the top and bottom surfaces of the razor cartridge).
Regarding claim 6, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein an extension direction of the first elongated portion and an extension direction of the second elongated portion are different from each other (the first elongated portion extends in a vertical direction towards the bottom surface and the second elongated portion extends in a horizontal direction towards wall 34; see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Walker as modified further discloses wherein the cover housing comprises a central opening portion configured to enable the blade housing to pass through a central region of the cover housing (cage 32 contains an opening such that it can be mounted over base 30; see paragraph [0016] and figs. 1A-2).
Regarding claim 8, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein: the blade housing comprises a first support portion comprising a first support surface (wall 32 (which corresponds to the blade housing) comprises a first support surface; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above) formed at front and/or rear of the blade housing (wall 32 is formed at both the front and/or rear of the blade housing, in opening 30; see fig. 1B), so that at least a portion of the first support surface is configured to support a lower portion of the second elongated portion (at least a portion of wall 32 supports a lower portion of the second elongated portion; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), and the cover housing comprises a second support portion comprising a second support surface parallel to an extension direction of the first support surface (wall 34 (which corresponds to the cover housing) comprises a second support surface extends in a direction parallel to the direction that the first support surface extends; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), so that at least a portion of the second support surface is configured to support an upper portion of the second elongated portion (at least a portion of wall 34 supports an upper portion of the second elongated portion; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker in view of Prochaska to include a first support portion comprising a first support surface and a second support portion comprising a second support surface. Prochaska discloses that inclusion of a second elongated portion (as part of the Z-shape portion 78) allows retainer 50 to be held within opening 30 via compressive force. In this configuration, retainer 50 has increased holdability and hold life (see paragraph [0031]). In order to achieve this configuration and its associated benefits, support surfaces are required to apply compressive force to the elongated portions of the clip. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in order to improve the device of Walker as modified, the support surfaces must also be included since they contribute to the structure that provides increased holdability and hold life.
Regarding claim 9, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein the blade housing comprises a first stop surface (wall 32 (which corresponds to the blade housing) comprises a first stop surface; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above) formed at front and/or rear of the blade housing (the first stop surface is formed at the top corner of wall 32 at both the front and/or rear of the blade housing, in opening 30; see figs. 1B and 9), so that at least a portion of the first stop surface is configured to support one surface of the first elongated portion (at least a portion of the right-side surface of the first elongated portion is supported by the first stop surface, even if not by direct contact. When leg 70 of retainer 50 is inserted into opening 30, at least a part of the lower elongated portions abut wall 32, which acts to compress leg 70. Therefore, wall 32 and the first stop surface provide support to the right-side surface of the first elongated portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker in view of Prochaska to include a first stop surface. Prochaska discloses that the configuration of retainer 50 allows for it to be held within opening 30 via compressive force. In this configuration, retainer 50 has increased holdability and hold life (see paragraph [0031]). In order to achieve this configuration and its associated benefits, stop surfaces are required to support and apply compressive force to the elongated portions of the clip. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in order to improve the device of Walker as modified, the stop surfaces must also be included since they contribute to the structure that provides increased holdability and hold life.
Regarding claim 10, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein the cover housing comprises a second stop surface (wall 34 (which corresponds to the cover housing) comprises a first stop surface; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), opposite to at least a portion of the blade housing (the second stop surface is opposite wall 32, which corresponds to the blade housing; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), at least a portion thereof configured to support the other surface of the first elongated portion (at least a portion of the left-side surface of the first elongated portion is supported by the second stop surface, even if not by direct contact. When leg 70 of retainer 50 is inserted into opening 30, at least a part of the lower elongated portions abut wall 34, which acts to compress leg 70. Therefore, wall 34 and the second stop surface provide support to the other, left-side surface of the first elongated portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker in view of Prochaska to include a second stop surface. Prochaska discloses that the configuration of retainer 50 allows for it to be held within opening 30 via compressive force. In this configuration, retainer 50 has increased holdability and hold life (see paragraph [0031]). In order to achieve this configuration and its associated benefits, stop surfaces are required to support and apply compressive force to the elongated portions of the clip. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in order to improve the device of Walker as modified, the stop surfaces must also be included since they contribute to the structure that provides increased holdability and hold life.
Regarding claim 11, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein the clip further comprises a third elongated portion (see annotated portion of fig. 9 above) extending from one end of the second elongated portion toward the bottom surface (the third elongated portion extends from an end of the second elongated portion towards the bottom of the razor cartridge; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker in view of Prochaska to include a clip with a third elongated portion. Prochaska discloses that inclusion of a third elongated portion (as part of the Z-shape portion 78) allows retainer 50 to be held within opening 30 via compressive force. In this configuration, retainer 50 has increased holdability and hold life (see paragraph [0031]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the device of Walker could be improved using this configuration since the retainer of Walker only has a first elongated portion, and thus does not provide increased security to the blades. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Walker to have the retainer configuration of Prochaska, since it would result in the blades being retained more securely for longer.
Regarding claim 12, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein: the clip further comprises a third elongated portion (see annotated portion of fig. 9 above) extending from one end of the second elongated portion toward the bottom surface (the third elongated portion extends from an end of the second elongated portion towards the bottom of the razor cartridge; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), the blade housing comprises a third stop surface (wall 32 (which corresponds to the blade housing) comprises a third stop surface, specifically where the upper portion of the third elongated portion abuts it; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above) at least a portion thereof configured to support one surface of the third elongated portion (at least a portion of the third stop surface is configured to support a surface of the third elongated portion), at an end of the first support portion in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (the third stop surface is formed at an end of the first support portion in a vertical direction which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), and the cover housing comprises a fourth stop surface (wall 34 (which corresponds to the cover housing) comprises a third stop surface, specifically where the lower portion of the third elongated portion abuts it; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), extending from the second support portion toward the bottom surface (the fourth stop surface extends from the second support portion at least partially toward the bottom surface of the razor cartridge; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above), at least a portion thereof configured to support the other surface opposite to one surface of the third elongated portion (at least a portion of the fourth stop surface is configured to support the opposite surface of the third elongated portion; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker in view of Prochaska to include a clip with a third elongated portion. Prochaska discloses that inclusion of a third elongated portion (as part of the Z-shape portion 78) allows retainer 50 to be held within opening 30 via compressive force. In this configuration, retainer 50 has increased holdability and hold life (see paragraph [0031]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the device of Walker could be improved using this configuration since the retainer of Walker only has a first elongated portion, and thus does not provide increased security to the blades. Further, inclusion of the third and fourth stop surfaces allow the third elongated portion to be securely retained within opening 30. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Walker to have the retainer configuration of Prochaska, since it would result in the blades being retained more securely for longer.
Regarding claim 13, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Prochaska further discloses wherein an extension direction of the third elongated portion and an extension direction of the second elongated portion are different from each other (the third elongated portion extends in a leftward direction towards wall 34, while the second elongated portion extends in a rightward direction towards wall 32; see annotated portion of fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 14, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Walker as modified further discloses wherein the cover housing comprises a pair of side openings (open slots 20; see figs. 1A and 1B) formed on both longitudinal side areas of the cover housing (open slots 20 are formed on front face 16 and may extend to rear face 40; see paragraph [0014] and figs. 1A-1B) to allow rinsing water to pass through the blade housing in a region adjacent to both longitudinal side surfaces of the at least one razor blade (since the width of open slots 20 is configured such that hair can pass through (so it can be cut by blades 24a-24c), it is understood that open slots 20 are also capable of allowing water to pass, so that trapped hair may be rinsed out of the cartridge; see paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Walker as modified further discloses wherein the cover housing comprises a pair of side walls (ribs 22; see figs. 1A-2) disposed beside each of the pair of side openings (open slots 20 are separated by corresponding ribs 22; see paragraph [0014] and figs. 1A-2) and configured to support at least a portion of one longitudinal side surface of the at least one razor blade when the blade housing is viewed from one longitudinal side (at least first blade 24a may be immediately adjacent to ribs 22 on front face 16; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker to make the side walls disposed below the side openings rather than beside them since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Walker further discloses that the purpose of the cover housing (cage 32) is to prevent cutting edges 26 from contacting the skin during use, so that hair is cut to a pre-determined length (see paragraph [0017]). This effect is achieved specifically by ribs 22. It appears as though the device would still function as intended (cage 32 would still protect the skin and ensure that hair is cut to a pre-determined length) if the side walls were rearranged to be disposed below the side openings. Since the device would not operate any differently, the modification is understood to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200316798) in view of Prochaska (EP 2707181), and further in view of Pazos Schroeder (US 20120000074).
Regarding claim 16, Walker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Walker as modified does not explicitly disclose a first lubrication band disposed on one surface adjacent to the top surface of the cover housing, wherein one end in the longitudinal direction of the first lubrication band is disposed closer to one end in the longitudinal direction of the cover housing than one end in the longitudinal direction of the clip.
Pazos Schroeder discloses a first lubrication band (lube ring 24; see fig. 2) disposed on one surface adjacent to the top surface of the cover housing (lube ring 24 is located on exterior surfaces 24a such that it contacts a user’s skin during use; see paragraph [0084] and fig. 2), wherein one end in the longitudinal direction of the first lubrication band is disposed closer to one end in the longitudinal direction of the cover housing than one end in the longitudinal direction of the clip (lube ring 24 is located closer to an end of the cartridge housing than to the clips; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Walker in view of Pazos Schroeder to include a lubrication band. Pazos Schroeder discloses that the lubrication band (lube ring 24) is beneficial because it provides lubrication and moisturization to a user (see paragraph [0078]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a larger lubrication band (as would likely be the case if the lubrication band has an end closer to an end of the housing than to an end of the clip) provides these benefits over a wider area. Thus, a larger portion of a user’s skin will be lubricated and moisturized while simultaneously requiring fewer strokes. Additionally, the chance of skin irritation (due to interaction of the blades with unlubricated skin) is reduced since the lubrication band is drawn over a larger area. A lubrication band would further improve the modified device of Walker by adding a lubricating/moisturizing effect to a user’s skin, thus improving comfort of the shave (see paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20180311845 to Moustakas, drawn to a shaving head; US 20190351568 to Kim, drawn to a razor cartridge; and US 20180009123 to Davos, drawn to a razor blade, razor head, and method of manufacture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724