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 September 23, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information. In this particular instance, the IDS list all Office Actions associated with 18/746,260, 18/7469,221, 18/746,274 for consideration. As of the mailing date of this Office Action, there are no Office Actions associated with the pending applications; therefore, the Office Actions associated with the above applications have not been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,212,777 to Gilder et al. in view of US Patent No. 4,345,374 to Jacobson.
In re claim 1, Gilder teaches a shaving razor cartridge, comprising:
a housing (1);
a guard (2) at a front of the housing;
a cap (3) at a rear of the housing;
a first blade (11) mounted to the housing between the guard and the cap, the first blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 1) nearest the guard (2) and a primary span (S1) measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard (as shown in at least Figures 1);
a second blade (12) mounted to the housing between the first blade (11) and the cap (3), the second blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 1); and
a third blade (13) mounted to the housing between the second blade (12) and the cap (3), the third blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 1);
a blade plane (P) defined by the cutting edges of the first blade, the second blade and the third blade;
a first blade angle (A) defined by the blade plane (P) and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the first blade to a top surface of the guard;
a second blade angle (A) defined by the blade plane (P) and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the third blade to the top surface of the guard.
In re claim 6, wherein the primary span (S1) is greater than 1.0 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27).
In re claim 7, wherein the primary span (S1) is less than or equal to 1.25 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27).
In re claim 8, wherein the primary span (S1) is greater than 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 1.25 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27).
In re claim 9, wherein the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 1:1 (Col. 2, lines 41-49).
Note, the first blade angle and the second blade angle can have the same value between 19-28 degrees.
In re claim 10, wherein a first blade span (S2) measured from the cutting edge of the second blade (12) to the cutting edge of the first blade (11) is less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 27-29).
Note, there are values of the first blade span that are less than the top value of 1.5mm of the primary span.
In re claim 11, a second blade span (S3) measured from the cutting edge of the second blade (12) to the cutting edge of the third blade is less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 27-29).
Note, there are values of the second blade span that are less than the top value of 1.5mm of the primary span.
In re claim 12, the first blade span is 5% to 20% less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 25-29).
Note, there are values within the first blade span that are 5% to 20% less than values within the (range of the) primary span.
In re claim 13, wherein the first blade span 8% to 16% less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 25-29).
Note, there are values within the first blade span that are 8% to 16% less than values within the (range of the) primary span.
Regarding claim 1, Gilder teaches a shaving angle A, which is the angle between the plane bisecting the blade tip and the plane with respect to which the blade exposure is measured, having an angle of between 19-28 degrees. Gilder teaches that all three blades do not have to have the same angle and the most effective values may depend on the span or exposure selected for each blade. The advantage of the shaving angle is that it influences drag forces associated with the blade (Col. 2, lines 41-49). Given the disclosed angles, the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle would be 5:6 (if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and the second blade angle is 27 degrees). Based on the disclosed angles, Gilder does not teach the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 4:5 to 4:1.
Jacobson teaches a shaving razor cartridge having blade oriented at a shaving angle (or blade tangent angle). Referring to Figures 5 and 6, the blade (80) is disposed at a first blade angle of 32 degrees and blade (82) is disposed at a second blade angle of 23 degrees, which is a ratio of 4:2.8, which falls within the claimed range of 4:5 to 4:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient the blades of Gilder for the first blade angle and the second blade angle to have a ratio of 4:2.8 as taught by Jacobson which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent scraping the skin.
The most effective blade angle values may depend on the span or exposure selected for each blade and the blade angles are also influential on the drag forces (Col. 2, lines 41-49, Gilder).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilder et al. in view of Jacobson, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 20180345512 to Walker, Jr. (hereinafter, Walker, equivalent to US Patent No, 11,117,278).
In re claims 2-3, modified Gilder teaches a ratio of the first blade angle, but does not teach the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 to 4:1, wherein the first blade angle is 3 degrees to 13 degrees.
Walker teaches a first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 13 degrees) and a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038). The ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 (if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and the second blade angle about 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of modified Gilder to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees in order to provide a ratio with respect to the second blade angle of 2:1 as taught Walker which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent scraping the skin. The orientation of the blades and the blade angles also are influential on drag forces and vary depending on the span or exposure for each blade (Col. 2, lines 41-49, Gilder).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Gilder teaches a first blade angle and a second blade angle, but does not teach the second blade angle is 1 to 5 degrees and the first blade angle is 3 to 10 degrees.
Walker teaches a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038) and a first blade angle first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which satisfies the top portion of the range of 3 to 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of modified Gilder to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees and the second blade angle at a smaller angle (than the first blade angle) as taught Walker which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent scraping the skin. The orientation of the blades and the blade angles also are influential on drag forces and vary depending on the span or exposure for each blade (Col. 2, lines 41-49, Gilder). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of modified Gilder would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to orient the modified blade of Gilder in view of Walker to have a blade angle in order to influence drag forces during shaving to reduce skin irritation, which is a design need based in the art of shaving. Based on the teachings provided by Walker, the Examiner concluded the blade angle orientation of modified Gilder maintains the desired angular orientation to influence drag.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Walker provided a teaching of a specific second blade angle of about 10 degrees. Based on the teachings of Walker, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the angle to perform the intended cutting operation. The angular value of about 10 degrees as taught by Walker, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various angular values above and below about 10 degrees before arriving at the angle which allows the integrity of the shaving device to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Walker, that the modified blade of Gilder could have an angular orientation as set forth by Walker, since the angle of about 10 degrees would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of orienting the blade at an angle of less than 10 degrees would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Walker teaches a blade angle of about 10 degrees being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various angles above and below the values about 10 degrees as taught by Walker to find the angular orientation that did not jeopardize the integrity of the shaver in order to influence drag.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20050198837 to Rawle in view of US Patent No. 20180345512 to Walker, Jr. (hereinafter, Walker).
In re claim 14, Rawle teaches a shaving razor cartridge, comprising:
a housing (20);
a guard (22) at a front of the housing;
a cap (24) at a rear of the housing;
a first blade (28, left) mounted to the housing between the guard and the cap, the first blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3) nearest the guard and a primary span (S1) measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard;
a second blade (28, second blade from the left in Figure 3) receives a cutting blade mounted to the housing between the first blade (28, left) and the cap (24), the second blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3); and
a third blade (28, third blade from the left in Figure 3) mounted to the housing between the second blade and the cap (24), the third blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3);
a fourth blade (28, fourth blade from the left in Figure 3) mounted to the housing between the third blade and the cap, the fourth blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3);
a fifth blade (28, last blade from the left in Figure 3) mounted to the housing between the fourth blade and the cap (24), the fifth blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 30;
a blade plane defined by the cutting edges of the first blade, the second blade, the third blade, the fourth blade and the fifth blade (as shown in at least Figure 3, the blade lie in a plane);
a first blade angle defined by the blade plane and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the first blade to a top surface of the guard (Para 0005);
a second blade angle defined by the blade plane and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the fifth blade to the top surface of the guard (Para 0005).
In re claim 20, wherein the primary span is less than or equal to 1.25 mm (Para 0016).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Rawle teaches a first and second blade angle are between 18 and 25 degrees, and does not teach wherein a ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 to 7:1 and the first blade angle is 3 degrees to 13 degrees.
Walker teaches a first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 13 degrees) and a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038). The ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 (if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and the second blade angle about 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of Rawle to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees and a second blade angle of about 10 degrees to satisfy the ratio of 2:1 as taught Walker to maintain providing a close and comfortable shave to prevent scraping and skin irritation.
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 18, Rawle teaches a first blade angle of 18-23 degrees, and does not teach a ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 4:1 to 5:1 (claim 15), the second blade angle is 0.5 degrees to 5 degrees (claim 17), and wherein the first blade angle is 3 degrees to 10 degrees and the second blade angle is 0.5 degrees to 5 degrees (claim 18).
Walker teaches a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038) and a first blade angle first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which satisfies the top portion of the range of 3 to 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of Rawle to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees and the second blade angle at a smaller angle (than the first blade angle) as taught Walker which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent scraping the skin. Orienting the first blade at an angle of 25 degrees and the second angle at 10 degrees would lead to a ratio of 5:2 (which is just outside the claimed range). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of Rawle would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to orient the blade of Rawle in view of Walker to have a blade angle in order to influence drag forces during shaving to reduce skin irritation, which is a design need based in the art of shaving. Based on the teachings provided by Walker, the Examiner concluded the blade angle orientation of Rawle maintains the desired angular orientation to influence drag.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Walker provided a teaching of a specific second blade angle of about 10 degrees. Based on the teachings of Walker, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the angle to perform the intended cutting operation. The angular value of about 10 degrees as taught by Walker, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various angular values above and below about 10 degrees before arriving at the angle which allows the integrity of the shaving device to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Walker, that the blade of Rawle could have an angular orientation as set forth by Walker, since the angle of about 10 degrees (which includes values less than 10 degrees) would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of orienting the blade at an angle of less than 10 degrees would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Walker teaches a blade angle of about 10 degrees being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various angles above and below the values about 10 degrees as taught by Walker to find the angular orientation that did not jeopardize the integrity of the shaver in order to influence drag.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawle in view of Walker, Jr. (hereinafter, Walker), as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Guilder.
In re claim 19, modified Rawle teaches the primary span is 0.65mm (Para 0016), which is less than one. While Rawle teaches reducing spans for an increased number of blades tends to desirably reduce the overall area taken up by blades and to reduce the bulge of skin between cutting edges with a potential improvement in comfort. In a five-bladed razor, the lower end of the span range of 0.95 mm provides good comfort but increased potential for problems associated with clearing shaving debris, and the upper end of the span range of 1.15 mm provides good clearing of shaving debris but potential for skin bulge and decreased comfort, such that span values within the range, and in particular, values closer to the most preferred 1.05 mm span, provide a good balance of reduced size and good comfort while maintaining sufficient rinsability to avoid shaving debris problems (Para 0017). While Rawle provide a span for the blades, Rawle does not teach the primary span is greater than 1.00 mm.
Gilder teaches the primary span is 0.5 to 1.5 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27, the range contains values 1.01 to 1.5 which are greater than 1mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the primary span of the blade of modified Rawle to be greater than 1 mm as taught by Gilder to maintain producing very good shaving results in terms of closeness of shave achieved with an acceptable overall performance taking into account all shaving characteristics (Col. 3, lines 36-40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication No. 20030204954 teaches a razor having a blade tangent angle in a range of 15 to 30 degrees.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724