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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
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,
1.
the at least one razor blade is configured to have a positive exposure value in response to one end of the cutting edge being located at an upper portion in the height direction with respect to a virtual plane,
the at least one razor blade is configured to have a negative exposure value in response to one end of the cutting edge being located at a lower portion in the height direction with respect to the virtual plane,
as recited in Claim 1,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Examiner notes that, as illustrated in at least Fig.s 2, 3B & 4B, both longitudinal ends of the blades appear to be positioned at distances, or heights, substantially equal from the clipping plane (CP), and neither is higher or lower than the other. Although the center, or middle point, of the blades appear to be substantially lower then either end, the middle cannot be understood to be an "end", with respect to the common English usage of the word "end".
2.
The positive/negative exposure value recited in the claims is only understood to be consistent with the DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION if the clipping plane (CP) as illustrated in FIG.s 2–4B is closest to the underside of the cartridge and not the uppermost surface. The extreme longitudinal ends of the blades are clearly closer to the CP than the midpoint, which is exactly the opposite of what is claimed, and recited in the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
1. the term "exposure value" is recited in the SPECIFICATION without definition;
2. Para [0031] states "with respect to the virtual plane, the exposure value measured in a direction parallel to the height direction at one longitudinal side portion of the cutting edge 110 of each of the at least one razor blade 100 is defined as a side portion exposure value, and the exposure value measured in a direction parallel to the height direction at a longitudinal central portion of the cutting edge 110 of each of the at least one razor blade 100 is defined as a central portion exposure value. "
Para [0035] states "the side portion exposure value of each of the at least one razor blades 100 is configured to be greater than the central portion exposure value. Accordingly, referring to FIG. 2, the cutting edge 110 of at least one razor blade 100 may have a downwardly convex shape when viewed from the front".
Para [0035] appear to be inconsistent with the illustrated product in FIG 2; Examiner cannot understand the statement in Para [0031] in the context of Para [0035] and FIG 2, since a plain English reading of Para [0035], and as recited in Claim 1, would appear to indicate the vertical distance (as represented in FIG 2) between the extreme longitudinal ends of the blades and the clipping plane (CP) is greater than the vertical distance between the central point of the blade and the CP. This would appear to be exactly opposite FIG 2.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ln 16, the limitation "exposure value" lacks definition in the INSTANT APPLICATION, and as such cannot be understood in the context of the claims, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims inconclusive. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean a part of the blade which may be observed. Additionally, a positive exposure value has been interpreted to mean a distance above a shaving surface (SP) of the razor cartridge, as measured from a plane coplanar with a SP and a negative exposure value has been interpreted to mean a distance below a SP of the razor cartridge, as measured from a plane coplanar with a SP;
Ln 18-19, the limitation "side portion exposure value" and Ln 21, the limitation "central portion exposure value" are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim a plain English language definition of nonstandard terms of art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted, consistent with the DRAWING and SPECIFICATION objections as stated above,
"side portion exposure value" to be the distance from the surface of the longitudinal end of the blade to the clipping plane (CP), as measured in a height direction parallel to the X–Z plane, as defined in the SPECIFICATION and DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION, this value being positive as the distance deceases and
"central portion exposure value" to be the distance from the surface of the longitudinal center of the blade to the clipping plane (CP), as measured in a height direction parallel to the X–Z plane, as defined in the SPECIFICATION and DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION, this value being positive as the distance deceases.
In other words, the limitations have been interpreted to mean the blade is configured to be convex towards the lower surface of the cartridge, away from the shaving surface, with the midpoint of the long edge of the blade farther from the shaving surface than the extreme ends;
Ln 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 18-19, 20, 22, the limitations "upper portion", "lower portion", "one longitudinal side portion of the cutting edge", "side portion exposure value", "one longitudinal side portion of the cutting edge", "one longitudinal side portion of the cutting edge" respectively, are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what part constitutes a portion. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean any part of a whole;
Ln 22-23, the limitation "the uppermost end of the plurality of clips in the height direction" lacks antecedent basis in the claims, no uppermost end having been previously recited.
Claims 3, 6, 8, the limitation "side portion exposure value" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what part constitutes a portion. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean any part of a whole.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-11, 16-17, the limitation "central portion exposure value(s)" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what part constitutes a portion. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean any part of a whole.
Examiner notes that all claims containing the limitation beginning with "configured to" have been interpreted as intended use and not as required structural elements of the claims.
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 1-11, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et alia (US 2020/0031005), hereinafter Kim, in view of Hegemann, et alia (US 5,199,173), hereinafter Hegemann.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim disclose a razor cartridge (100) (Para [0033], Ln 1-2), comprising:
at least one razor blade (10) (Para [0034], Ln 1) comprising a cutting edge (Para [0034], Ln 2) ;
a blade housing (10) (Para [0035], Ln 2) configured to accommodate the at least one razor blade in a longitudinal direction, the blade housing comprising a top surface toward which the cutting edge faces and a bottom surface opposing the top surface (as illustrated in at least Fig 1); and
a plurality of clips (7a), (7b) (Para [0035], Ln 2-3) configured to retain the at least one razor blade in the blade housing on both sides of the longitudinal direction (as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Kim is silent to a curved shape of the blade, however Hegemann teaches a razor cartridge (2) (Col, 5, Ln 10-11) having a blade which is configured to be convex towards the lower surface of the cartridge, away from the shaving surface, with the midpoint of the long edge of the blade farther from the shaving surface than the extreme ends (as illustrated in at least Fig 1a). Hegemann further teaches the advantage of this configuration in that the curve more closely fits the area to be shaved (Col 2, Ln 41-46).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as disclosed by Kim, to include having a blade which is configured to be convex towards the lower surface of the cartridge, away from the shaving surface, with the midpoint of the long edge of the blade farther from the shaving surface than the extreme ends, in order to provide a curve which more closely fits the area to be shaved, providing more effective shaving.
The limitation "in response to" has been interpreted to mean "with respect to", consistent with plain English use in the context recited.
Examiner notes the limitation "a virtual plane" is recited without definition as to location or orientation. Likewise the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION lacks any specificity for this term. In order to examiner the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted this term to mean a plane, parallel to the X–Z plane, as illustrated in the DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION and located anywhere along the width, perpendicular to the longitudinal length, of the razor cartridge.
Examiner further notes the statement "with respect to the virtual plane, an exposure value measured in a direction parallel to the height direction at one longitudinal side portion of the cutting edge of each of the at least one razor blade is defined as a side portion exposure value, and an exposure value measured in a direction parallel to the height direction at a longitudinal central portion of the cutting edge of each of the at least one razor blade is defined as a central portion exposure value" has been interpreted as a definition of terms, namely
"a side portion exposure value" and "central portion exposure value",
rather than claimed limitation. These terms are fully and consistently defined in the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION, and within the context of the DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION, and their inclusion in the claims has been interpreted as adding no structural limitation to the claims. As such this statement was not searched and compared to the prior art.
Examiner further notes the statement "an exposure value measured in a direction parallel to…" has not been interpreted as a method step without prior antecedent basis, but rather a definition, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade has a negative exposure value with respect to the clip plane (as illustrated in at least Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 3, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim is not explicit to the dimension of the side portion exposure value, however Examiner notes this limitation has noted been critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation, in order to optimize the product.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann, to include the side portion exposure value of the at least one razor blade is -0.597 mm to -0.37 mm with respect to the clip plane, in order to optimize the razor cartridge.
Regarding Claim 4, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim is not explicit to the dimension of the central portion exposure value, however Examiner notes this limitation has noted been critically recited, and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation, in order to optimize the product.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann, to include the central portion exposure value of the at least one razor blade is -0.632 mm to -0.376 mm with respect to the clip plane, in order to optimize the razor cartridge.
Regarding Claim 5, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade disposed relatively at front with respect to a shaving direction, and a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction, and the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade is greater than the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade with respect to the clip plane (CP) (as illustrated in at least Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 6, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim is silent to an exposure at the side being different from the middle, however Hagemann teaches this configuration, with the convex blade configuration (as illustrated in Fig 1b).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann, to include the side portion exposure value of first razor blade is less than the side portion exposure value of the second razor blade with respect to the clip plane, as taught by Hagemann, providing a blade curve more closely fit to the area to be shaved, thus optimizing the shaving experience.
Regarding Claim 7, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade disposed relatively at front with respect to a shaving direction, and a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction, and the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade is smaller than the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade with respect to the clip plane (CP) (as illustrated in at least Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 8, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim is silent to an exposure at the side being different from the middle, however Hagemann teaches this configuration, with the convex blade configuration (as illustrated in Fig 1a).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann, to include the side portion exposure value of first razor blade is greater than the side portion exposure value of the second razor blade with respect to the clip plane, as taught by Hagemann, providing a blade curve more closely fit to the area to be shaved, thus optimizing the shaving experience.
Regarding Claim 9, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade and a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade (as illustrated in at least FIG 2), and
a value of a difference between the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade and the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade is 0.001 mm to 0.02 mm with respect to the clip plane (Para [0064], Ln 1-6 discloses a range of –0.1mm to +0.1mm, which covers the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade disposed relatively at front with respect to a shaving direction, a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction, and a third razor blade disposed at rear of the second razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction (as illustrated in FIG 6), and
with respect to the clip plane, the central portion exposure values of each of the first razor blade, the second razor blade, and the third razor blade are configured to increase in that order (as illustrated in FIG 7).
Regarding Claim 11, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade disposed relatively at front with respect to a shaving direction, a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction, and a third razor blade disposed at rear of the second razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction (as illustrated in FIG 6), and
with respect to the clip plane, the central portion exposure values of each of the first razor blade, the second razor blade, and the third razor blade are configured to decrease in that order (as illustrated in FIG 8).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Hegemann and Park, et alia (US 2011 0232100), hereinafter Park.
Regarding Claim 12, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim is silent to a blade curved from front to back.
Park teaches a razor cartridge (60) having a blade (40) including a clip (66) (Para [0042], Ln 1, & Para [0052], Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least FIG 8) when the razor cartridge is viewed from the top, with respect to a shaving direction, the longitudinal central portion of each of the at least one razor blade is disposed more adjacent to the front than both longitudinal side portions ( as illustrated in FIG 6). Park further teaches the advantage of the configuration as reducing the pressure applied to the cutting edge during shaving, thus improving the shaving experience.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann, to include when the razor cartridge is viewed from the top, with respect to a shaving direction, the longitudinal central portion of each of the at least one razor blade is disposed more adjacent to the front than both longitudinal side portions, as taught by Park, in order to improve the shaving experience.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Hegemann, Park and Zucker (US 2023/0321854), hereafter Zucker.
Regarding Claim 13, combined Kim/Hagemann/Park teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade disposed relatively at front with respect to a shaving direction and a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction (as illustrated in at least FIG 1). Kim is silent to a varied separation distance.
Zucker teaches a razor cartridge (1300) having blades (1380) (Para [0081], Ln 1-3), having various separation distances (Para.s [0081] through [0083]; as illustrated in FIG.s 13a–13c). Zucker further teaches the advantage of non–parallel blade separation in that it provides a smoother more comfortable shave with less irritation (Para [0082], Ln12-14).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann/Park to include a configuration wherein a distance in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction between an imaginary line connecting the both longitudinal side portions and the longitudinal central portion is referred to as a separation distance, the separation distance of the first razor blade is greater than the separation distance of the second razor blade, as taught by Zucker, in order to optimize the shaving experience.
Regarding Claim 14, combined Kim/Hagemann/Park teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade comprises a first razor blade disposed relatively at front with respect to a shaving direction and a second razor blade disposed at rear of the first razor blade relatively with respect to the shaving direction (as illustrated in at least FIG 1). Kim is silent to a varied separation distance.
Zucker teaches a razor cartridge (1300) having blades (1380) (Para [0081], Ln 1-3), having various separation distances (Para.s [0081] through [0083]; as illustrated in FIG.s 13a–13c). Zucker further teaches the advantage of non–parallel blade separation in that it provides a smoother more comfortable shave with less irritation (Para [0082], Ln12-14).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann/Park to include a configuration wherein a distance in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction between an imaginary line connecting the both longitudinal side portions and the longitudinal central portion is referred to as a separation distance, the separation distance of the first razor blade is smaller than the separation distance of the second razor blade, as taught by Zucker, in order to optimize the shaving experience.
Regarding Claim 15, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses a first contact member (1) disposed at front of the at least one razor blade with respect to a shaving direction; and a second contact member (3) disposed at rear of the at least one razor blade with respect to the shaving direction (Para [0036], Ln 1-6; as illustrated in at least FIG 1).
Kim further discloses the configuration wherein the exposure ranges from positive to negative, with respect to the CP (Para [0064], Ln 1-6 discloses a range of -0.1mm to +0.1mm ). Kim is silent to an exposure value of -0.25 mm to 0.15 mm, however Examiner notes this limitation is not critically recited and has been interpreted as a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation, in order to optimize the product.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge as taught by combined Kim/Hagemann to include, in response to the first contact member and the second contact member being in an unused state without moisture, the at least one razor blade is configured to have the exposure value of -0.25 mm to 0.15 mm with respect to a shaving plane tangential to an upper portion of the first contact member and an upper portion of the second contact member, in order to optimize the razor cartridge.
Regarding Claim 16, combined Kim/Hagemann teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade has a first razor blade and a second razor blade (as illustrated in at least FIG 1). Hagemann teaches the concave blade configuration wherein, with respect to the clip plane, the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade is smaller than the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade (as illustrated in Fig 1a).
Kim further discloses with respect to the shaving plane, the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade is greater than the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade (as illustrated in FIG 8).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim further discloses the at least one razor blade has a first razor blade and a second razor blade (as illustrated in at least FIG 1). Hagemann teaches the concave blade configuration wherein, with respect to the clip plane, the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade is smaller than the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade (as illustrated in Fig 1b).
Kim further discloses with respect to the shaving plane, the central portion exposure value of the first razor blade is smaller than the central portion exposure value of the second razor blade (as illustrated in FIG 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,570,123 to Kuhnl teaches a razor cartridge.
US 4,901,437 to Item teaches a razor cartridge.
US 2002 0157259 to Coffin teaches a razor cartridge.
US 2021 0276211 to Harris teaches a razor blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724