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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9-23-2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) requires a copy of a pending U.S. application that is being cited in an IDS if (A) the cited information is not part of the specification, including the claims, and the drawings (e.g., an Office Action, remarks in an amendment paper, etc.), or (B) the cited application is not stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. This waiver is limited to the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the U.S. application (or portion of the application). If material other than the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the file of a U.S. patent application is being cited in an IDS, the IDS must contain a legible copy of such material.
Additionally, Applicant’s IDS states that the Examiner has reviewed “all” of the office Actions in pending applications. These applications are pending and may have additional Office Actions, submitted after, the date of signature. As such, the Examiner cannot acknowledge cited Office Actions that may not be in existence at the time of signature, which the IDS appears to allow.
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 1-6, 10-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 177640 to Gilder in view of US 2011/0225825 to Bruno.
In re Claim 1, PL 177640 to Gilder teaches a shaving razor cartridge, comprising:
a housing (see Fig.1 , #1);
a guard at a front of the housing (see Fig. 1, #2)
a cap at a rear of the housing (see Ig. 1, #4);
a first blade (see Fig. 1, #11) mounted to the housing between the guard and the cap, the first blade having a cutting edge nearest the guard and a primary span (see Fig. 1, “S1”) measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard;
a second blade (see Fig. 1, #12) mounted to the housing between the first blade and the cap, the second blade having a cutting edge and a first blade span from the cutting edge of the first blade to the cutting edge of the second blade (see Fig. 1, “S2”);
a third blade (see Fig. 1, #13) mounted to the housing between the second blade and the cap, the third blade having a cutting edge and a second blade span (see Fig. 1, “S3” from the cutting edge of the second blade to the cutting edge of the third blade;
Gilder teaches:
a) the e span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm – see Gilder abstract.
b) “It is preferred that the edge of the first and second blades and the edge of the second and third blades are spaced 1.5 mm apart,” see Translation, pg. 2, second paragraph from the bottom of the page.
Gilder only teaches 3 blades. As such, Gilder is silent as to:
a fourth blade mounted to the housing between the third blade and the cap, the fourth blade having a cutting edge and a third blade span from the cutting edge of the third blade to the cutting edge of the fourth blade;
a fifth blade mounted to the housing between the fourth blade and the cap, the fifth blade having a cutting edge and a fourth blade span from the cutting edge of the fourth blade to the cutting edge of the fifth blade,
wherein a ratio of a sum of the primary span, the first blade span, the second blade span, the third blade span and the fourth blade span to the primary span is 3:1 to 6:1.
Bruno teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to have a cartridge with five blades (see Bruno, Fig.1 in view of Para. 0011 teaching five blade #16 showing in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add additional blades including two more for a total of five blades to the cartridge of Gilder, as taught by Bruno. Bruno states that adding more blade increases performance of the razor but also increases the cost. As such, a cartridge with five blades provides superior performance albeit at an increased cost. Understanding this balance is within the level of ordinary skill in the art depending on whether the designer wants a premiums razor or an economical razor. In other words, adding blades would increase the performance of the razor.
Additionally, Bruno teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade cartridges to mount the blade to the housing (see Bruno, Fig. 2, showing the blades mounted by blade supports in the housing). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, mount the blades of Gilder in a blade housing as illustrated by Bruno’s Fig.4. Doing so locates the blades in the cartridge ensuring the are properly oriented for use.
Gilder teaches located providing a “primary span” at 1.5mm; and each blade having a span of 1.5mm – see above. As such, utilizing the dimension taught by Gilder would provide for (1.5mm primary span, 1.5mm first blade span, 1.5mm second blade span, 1.5mm third blade span and 1.5mm fourth blade span). This would read on Applicant’s ratio of between 3:1 to 6:1, as 7.5mm : 1.5mm equals 5:1.
In re Claim 2. modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a ratio of the sum of the primary span, the first blade span, the second blade span, the third blade span and the fourth blade span to the primary span is 4:1 to 5:1 (7.5mm : 1.5mm equals 5:1 ).
In re Claim 3, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm (the Examiner notes that Gilder teaches a range of dimensions but in the example used above in re Claim 1 the primary span was 1.5mm).
In re Claim 4, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the primary span is less than or equal to 1.25 mm. Gilder teaches that it is known to provide “the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. The span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm.” – see Gilder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the primary span 1.25mm (and the other spans 1.25 mm, as these are within the ranges taught by Gilder). Doing so provides a razor that maintains the drag force at a level for a closer shave (see Gilder, Translation, Pg. 3, ll. 17-21).
In re Claim 5, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 1.25 mm. Gilder teaches that it is known to provide “the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. The span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm.” – see Gilder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the primary span 1.25 mm (and the other spans 1.25 mm, as these are within the ranges taught by Gilder). Doing so provides a razor that maintains the drag force at a level for a closer shave (see Gilder, Translation, Pg. 3, ll. 17-21)
In re Claim 6, modified Gilder in re Claim 1, teaches wherein an average of the first blade span, the second blade span, the third blade span and the fourth blade span is 0.85 mm to 1.05 mm. Gilder teaches that it is known to provide “the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. The span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm.” – see Gilder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the primary span 1.0mm (and the other spans 1.0 mm, as these are within the ranges taught by Gilder). Doing so provides a razor that maintains the drag force at a level for a closer shave (see Gilder, Translation, Pg. 3, ll. 17-21).
In re Claim 10, Gilder teaches a shaving razor cartridge, comprising:
a housing (see Fig. 1, #1);
a guard at a front of the housing (see Fig. 1, #2);
a cap at a rear of the housing (see Fig. 1, #4);
a first blade (see Fig. 1, #11) between the guard and the cap (see Fig. 1), the first blade having a cutting edge nearest the guard and a primary span (see Fig. 1, “S1” – see also abstract teaching the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm; see also Claim 2 claiming the range of 0.5mm to 1.0mm) measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard;
a second blade (see Fig. 1, #12) between the first blade and the cap (see Fig. 1), the second blade having a cutting edge and a first blade span (see Fig. 1, S2 – see also abstract teaching the span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm) from the cutting edge of the first blade to the cutting edge of the second blade;
a third blade (see Fig. 1, #13) between the second blade and the cap (see Fig. 1), the third blade having a cutting edge and a second blade span (see Fig. 1, “S3”) from the cutting edge of the second blade to the cutting edge of the third blade,
wherein a ratio of a sum of the primary span, the first blade span, the second blade span to the primary span is 2:1 to 4:1 (see also translation, Pg. 3, bottom paragraph which states: The first, second and third blades 11, 12, 13 are spaced apart from each other, with the spacing S of the first of the blades 11 from sheath 2 is 0.5 to 1.5 mm, preferably 0.70 mm. The distance S .sub.2 of the second blade 12 from the first 11 and the distance S, the third blade 13 from the second 12 have a size in the range of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm. Preferably, the distances S .sub.2 and S, have equal values of 1.50 mm).
Gilder teaches located providing a “primary span” at 1.5mm; and each blade having a span of 1.5mm – see above. As such, utilizing the dimension taught by Gilder would provide for (1.5mm primary span, 1.5mm first blade span, 1.5mm second blade span, 1) . This would read on Applicant’s ratio of between 2:1 to 4:1, as 4.5mm : 1.5mm equals 3:1.
Gilder does not illustrate the blades mounted to the housing.
Bruno teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade cartridges to mount the blade to the housing (see Bruno, Fig. 2, showing the blades mounted by blade supports in the housing). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, mount the blades of Gilder in a blade housing as illustrated by Bruno’s Fig.4. Doing so locates the blades in the cartridge ensuring the are properly oriented for use.
In re Claim 11, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, teaches wherein a ratio of the sum of the primary span, the first blade span and the second blade span to the primary span is 2.4:1 to 2.9:1.
Gilder teaches located providing a “primary span” at 1.5mm; and each blade having a span of 1.5mm – see above. As such, utilizing the dimension taught by Gilder would provide for (1.5mm primary span, 1.5mm first blade span, 1.5mm second blade span, 1) . This would read on Applicant’s ratio of between 2:1 to 4:1, as 4.5mm : 1.5mm equals 3:1.
In re Claim 12, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, teaches wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm (the Examiner notes that Gilder teaches a range of dimensions but in the example used above in re Claim 1 the primary span was 1.5mm).
In re Claim 13, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, does not teach wherein the primary span is less than or equal to 1.25 mm. Gilder teaches that it is known to provide “the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. The span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm.” – see Gilder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the primary span 1.25mm (and the other spans 1.25 mm, as these are within the ranges taught by Gilder). Doing so provides a razor that maintains the drag force at a level for a closer shave (see Gilder, Translation, Pg. 3, ll. 17-21).
In re Claim 14, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, does no tach wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 1.25 mm. Gilder teaches that it is known to provide “the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. The span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm.” – see Gilder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the primary span 1.25 mm (and the other spans 1.25 mm, as these are within the ranges taught by Gilder). Doing so provides a razor that maintains the drag force at a level for a closer shave (see Gilder, Translation, Pg. 3, ll. 17-21)
In re Claim 15, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, does not teach wherein an average of the first blade span and the second blade span is 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm. ilder teaches that it is known to provide “the span between the first blade edge and the guard is in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. The span between the edge of the third blade and the edge of the second blade is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm.” – see Gilder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the primary span 1.0mm (and the other spans 1.0 mm, as these are within the ranges taught by Gilder). Doing so provides a razor that maintains the drag force at a level for a closer shave (see Gilder, Translation, Pg. 3, ll. 17-21).
In re Claim 19, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, teaches wherein an average of the blade span of the first blade and the blade span of the second blade is 5% to 20% less than the primary blade span (the Examiner notes Gilder allows for a primary blade span of 1.25 mm and an average blade span between the blades of 1.125. Such an embodiment, taught by Glider, would provide for the average of the blade span of the blades (1.125 mm) is 10 percent less than the primary blade span (1.25 mm).
In re Claim 20, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, teaches wherein an average of the blade span of the first blade and the blade span of the second blade is 10% to 15% less than the primary blade span (the Examiner notes Gilder allows for a primary blade span of 1.25 mm and an average blade span between the blades of 1.125. Such an embodiment, taught by Glider, would provide for the average of the blade span of the blades (1.125 mm) is 10 percent less than the primary blade span (1.25 mm).
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 177640 to Gilder in view of US 2011/0225825 to Bruno, and further in view of
US 2011/0146079 to Clarke
In re Claim 7, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the cutting edges of the first blade, the second blade, the third blade, the fourth blade and the fifth blade define a blade plane and a guard height measure from the blade plane to a top surface of the guard is 0 mm to 0.25 mm.
However, Clark teaches a negative exposure (guard height in view of Applicants’ Fig. 3, “h1” in view of Clarke Fig. 4, #43) of -0.07 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0076, teaching a negative blade exposure having a range of -0.18mm to -0.01mm). In the same field of invention, razor blades in cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the range and example of the negative exposure of Clarke in the device of modified Gilder in order to improve comfort by reduction of blade pressure on the skin (see Clark, Para. 0040).
The Examiner notes that .07mm falls within the range of 0mm to .25mm.
In re Claim 8, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a ratio of the primary span to the guard height is 9.5:1 to 15:1.
Clark teaches a negative exposure (guard height in view of Applicants’ Fig. 3, “h1” in view of Clarke Fig. 4, #43) of a range of -0.18mm to -0.01 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0076, teaching a negative blade exposure having a range of -0.18mm to -0.01mm). In the same field of invention, razor blades in cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the range and example of the negative exposure of Clarke in the device of modified Gilder in order to improve comfort by reduction of blade pressure on the skin (see Clark, Para. 0040).
A primary span of 1.0mm, which is in the range taught by Gilder, and a guard height of 0.1mm has a ratio of 10:1.
In re Claim 9, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a ratio of the primary span to the guard height is 9.5:1 to 11:1. Clark teaches a negative exposure (guard height in view of Applicants’ Fig. 3, “h1” in view of Clarke Fig. 4, #43) of a range of -0.18mm to -0.01 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0076, teaching a negative blade exposure having a range of -0.18mm to -0.01mm). In the same field of invention, razor blades in cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the range and example of the negative exposure of Clarke in the device of modified Gilder in order to improve comfort by reduction of blade pressure on the skin (see Clark, Para. 0040).
A primary span of 1.0mm, which is in the range taught by Gilder, and a guard height of 0.1mm has a ratio of 10:1.
In re Claim 16, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, does not teach wherein the cutting edges of the first blade, the second blade and the third blade define a blade plane and a guard height measure from the blade plane to a top surface of the guard is 0 mm to 0.25 mm.
However, Clark teaches a negative exposure (guard height in view of Applicants’ Fig. 3, “h1” in view of Clarke Fig. 4, #43) of -0.07 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0076, teaching a negative blade exposure having a range of -0.18mm to -0.01mm). In the same field of invention, razor blades in cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the range and example of the negative exposure of Clarke in the device of modified Gilder in order to improve comfort by reduction of blade pressure on the skin (see Clark, Para. 0040).
The Examiner notes that .07mm falls within the range of 0mm to .25mm.
In re Claim 17, modified Gilder, in re Claim1 , does not teach wherein a ratio of the primary span to the guard height is 9.5:1 to 15:1.
Clark teaches a negative exposure (guard height in view of Applicants’ Fig. 3, “h1” in view of Clarke Fig. 4, #43) of a range of -0.18mm to -0.01 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0076, teaching a negative blade exposure having a range of -0.18mm to -0.01mm). In the same field of invention, razor blades in cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the range and example of the negative exposure of Clarke in the device of modified Gilder in order to improve comfort by reduction of blade pressure on the skin (see Clark, Para. 0040).
A primary span of 1.0mm, which is in the range taught by Gilder, and a guard height of 0.1mm has a ratio of 10:1.
In re Claim 18, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, does not teach wherein a ratio of the primary span to the guard height is 9.5:1 to 11:1.
Clark teaches a negative exposure (guard height in view of Applicants’ Fig. 3, “h1” in view of Clarke Fig. 4, #43) of a range of -0.18mm to -0.01 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0076, teaching a negative blade exposure having a range of -0.18mm to -0.01mm). In the same field of invention, razor blades in cartridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the range and example of the negative exposure of Clarke in the device of modified Gilder in order to improve comfort by reduction of blade pressure on the skin (see Clark, Para. 0040).
A primary span of 1.0mm, which is in the range taught by Gilder, and a guard height of 0.1mm has a ratio of 10:1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 177640 to Gilder in view of US 2011/0225825 to Bruno, and further in view of US 7,047,646 to Coffin.
If it is argued that in re Claim 19, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, does not teach wherein an average of the blade span of the first blade and the blade span of the second blade is 5% to 20% less than the primary blade span, the claim is rejected in view of Coffin. Coffin teaches decreasing the gap between the blades after the primary blade (see Coffin, Fig. 6e, showing gaps “u” “v” and “w” decreasing – see also Col. 5, ll. 10-25 which states “it is desirable to utilize non-uniform interblade spacing. For example, FIG. 6E diagrammatically shows four razor blades 22 spaced apart from one another by distances "u, v, and w", where u>v>w. The decreased interblade spacing provides greater comfort, and at the same time the four or more razor blades 22 of the present cartridge provide increased performance.”).
The Examiner notes that decreasing the blade gap, in the manner illustrated by Coffin, Fig. 6E, would lower the length of the average of the blade span below the length of the primary blade span. As such, decreasing the blade spacing is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide the average blade span between 5 and 20 percent lower than the primary blade span, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here lowing the average blade span length, as illustrated in Fig. 6E of Coffin, would provide greater comfort, and at the same time the four or more razor blades of the present cartridge provide increased performance – see Coffin, Co. 5, ll. 10-25.
If it is argued that in re Claim 20, modified Gilder, in re Claim 10, does not teach wherein an average of the blade span of the first blade and the blade span of the second blade is 10% to 15% less than the primary blade span, the claim is rejected in view of Coffin. Coffin teaches decreasing the gap between the blades after the primary blade (see Coffin, Fig. 6e, showing gaps “u” “v” and “w” decreasing – see also Col. 5, ll. 10-25 which states “it is desirable to utilize non-uniform interblade spacing. For example, FIG. 6E diagrammatically shows four razor blades 22 spaced apart from one another by distances "u, v, and w", where u>v>w. The decreased interblade spacing provides greater comfort, and at the same time the four or more razor blades 22 of the present cartridge provide increased performance.”).
The Examiner notes that decreasing the blade gap, in the manner illustrated by Coffin, Fig. 6E, would lower the length of the average of the blade span below the length of the primary blade span. As such, decreasing the blade spacing is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide the average blade span between 5 and 20 percent lower than the primary blade span, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here lowing the average blade span length, as illustrated in Fig. 6E of Coffin, would provide greater comfort, and at the same time the four or more razor blades of the present cartridge provide increased performance – see Coffin, Co. 5, ll. 10-25/
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724