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 9-9-2024 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 § 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 1-20 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.
In re Claim 1, “wherein a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the first blade is at least 5 times less than the primary span,” is indefinite. “At least 5 times less than the primary span” is indefinite. The Examiner notes that the order of operations of math requires multiplication before subtraction. For Example, if the primary span is 10, at least 5 times 10 equals 50. This number less than the primary span (10-50) equals negative 40. Alternatively, again, if the primary span is 10, at least 5 times 10 equals 50. 50-10 equals 40. Neither of these results appear to be supported by the Application’s disclosure or correspond to the dependent claims. As such, the claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “at least 5 times” appears to be an open ended range. See MPEP 2173.05(c). It is unclear where the outer limit of the claim is. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 2, “wherein the rinse gap is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span,” is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. Order of operations of math requires multiplication before subtraction. For Example, if the primary span is 10, 10 times 10 equals 100. This number less than the primary span (10-100) equals negative 90. Alternatively, again, if the primary span is 10, at least 10 times 10 equals 100. 100-10 equals 90. Neither of these results appear to be supported by the Application’s disclosure or correspond to the dependent claims. As such, the claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 3, “wherein a ratio of the rinse gap to the primary span is 5:1 to 20:1,” is indefinite. As best understood the rinse gap is of a smaller value than the primary span. However, Applications claim requires the rinse gap to be 5 times to 20 times larger than the primary span. It is unclear what application is claiming.
In re Claim 4, “wherein a ratio of the rinse gap to the primary span is 9:1 to 11:1. As best understood the rinse gap is of a smaller value than the primary span. However, Applications claim requires the rinse gap to be 9 times to 11 times larger than the primary span. It is unclear what application is claiming.
In re Claim 6, “wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm,” is indefinite. greater than 1.0mm is an open ended range. It is unclear where the scope of the claim ends. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the first blade is at least 5 to 10 times less than the primary span; a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the third blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the second blade is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span; a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the fourth blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the third blade is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span; and a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the fifth blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the fourth blade is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span,” is indefinite. “At least 5 times less than the primary span” is indefinite. The Examiner notes that the order of operations of math requires multiplication before subtraction. For Example, if the primary span is 10, at least 5 times 10 equals 50. This number less than the primary span (10-50) equals negative 40. Alternatively, again, if the primary span is 10, at least 5 times 10 equals 50. 50-10 equals 40. Neither of these results appear to be supported by the Applications discourse or correspond to the dependent claims. As such, the claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 18, “wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm,” is indefinite. Greater than 1.0 mm appears to be an open ended range. See MPEP 2173.05(c). It is unclear where the outer limit of the claim is. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 177640 to Gilder in view of US 2011/0146079 to Clarke.
In re Claim 1, 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 measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard (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);
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 (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 is silent as to the blades mounted to the housing and wherein a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the first blade is at least 5 times less than the primary span.
However, Clarke et al. teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridges of having rinse through gaps with “range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm and desirably about 0.1 mm to about 0.2 mm” – see Clarke, et al. Para.0008 and 0065. The Examiner notes that Clarke teaches “ "rinse-through gaps" (e.g., a gap for cut hair and debris to flow into and generally representing the shortest distance between the blades.” (emphasis added; see Clarke, Para. 0065). 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 to provide a rinse through gap using one embodiment disclosed by Clark (.1mm) with the primary span disclosed by Gilder (1.0mm). Doing so is the use of known primary span (by Gilder) and known rinse through gaps (from Clarke) which would allow any excess hair that is cut by the second blade 12b or other debris to flow into this gap 23a, avoiding clogging the blades further back in the cartridge (see Clark, Para. 0066).
Additionally, Clark teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade cartridges to mount the blade to the housing (see Clark, Fig. 2, showing blade mounted by blade supports #15a-e, in the housing #15). 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 Clark’s Fig. 2, #15/15-e. Doing so locates the blades in the cartridge ensuring the are properly oriented for use.
In re Claim 2, modified Glider, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the rinse gap is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span. A rinse through gap of .1mm is “10 times less” than 1.0mm.
In re Claim 3, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a ratio of the rinse gap to the primary span is 5:1 to 20:1. A rinse through gap of .1mm and a primary span of 1.0mm is ratio of “10:1” as best understood.
In re Claim 4, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a ratio of the rinse gap to the primary span is 9:1 to 11:1. A rinse through gap of .1mm and a primary span of 1.0mm is ratio of “10:1” as best understood.
In re Claim 5, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the rinse gap is 0.05 mm to 0.25 mm (see Clarke, Para. 0068 teaching .1mm rinse through gap).
In re Claim 6, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm (see Gilder abstract teaching a primary span of 1.5mm).
In re Claim 7, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the primary span is less than or equal to 1.25 mm (see Gilder abstract teaching a primary span of 1.0 – see Claim 2).
In re Claim 8, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 1.25 mm (see gilder abstract teaching a 0.5-1.5mm) .
In re Claim 9, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein an average of the first blade span and the second blade span is 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm (gilder teaches 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. The Examiner notes that if each blade has a span of 1.0 mm between the next blade, the average would be 1.0mm).
In re Claim 10, modified Gilder, in re Claim 1, 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 11, 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 -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).
A primary span of 1.0mm and a guard height of .07mm has a ratio of 14.2857 to 1.
In re Claim 12, 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.
Claims 13-20 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 US 2011/0146079 to Clarke.
In re Claim 13, 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 measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard (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);
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 (see Fig. 1, “S3”) from the cutting edge of the second blade to the cutting edge of the third blade (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 is silent as to the blades mounted to the housing and a fourth blade including a blade support member 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 including a blade support member 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;
a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the first blade is at least 5 to 10 times less than the primary span;
a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the third blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the second blade is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span;
a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the fourth blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the third blade is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span; and
a rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the fifth blade and a rear face of the blade support member of the fourth blade is 5 to 10 times less than the primary span.
However, 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.
Further, Clarke et al. teaches that it is known in the art of razor cartridges of having rinse through gaps with “range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm and desirably about 0.1 mm to about 0.2 mm” – see Clarke, et al. Para.0008 and 0065. The Examiner notes that Clarke teaches “ "rinse-through gaps" (e.g., a gap for cut hair and debris to flow into and generally representing the shortest distance between the blades.” (emphasis added; see Clarke, Para. 0065). 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 to provide a rinse through gap on all the blades of modified Gilder using one embodiment disclosed by Clark (.1mm) with the primary span disclosed by Gilder (1.0mm). Doing so is the use of known primary span (by Gilder) and known rinse through gaps (from Clarke) which would allow any excess hair that is cut by the second blade 12b or other debris to flow into this gap 23a, avoiding clogging the blades further back in the cartridge (see Clark, Para. 0066).
Additionally, Clark teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade cartridges to mount the blade to the housing (see Clark, Fig. 2, showing blade mounted by blade supports #15a-e, in the housing #15). 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 Clark’s Fig. 2, #15/15-e. Doing so locates the blades in the cartridge ensuring the are properly oriented for use.
Such a combination would provide for the blades mounted to the housing, fourth and fifth blades, and all rinse through gaps 5 to 10 times less than the primary span.
In re Claim 14, modified Gilder, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the first blade is 9% to 20% of the primary span (a rinse through gap of .1mm with a primary span of 1.0mm is 10 percent), the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the third blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the second blade is 9% to 20% of the primary span (a rinse through gap of .1mm with a primary span of 1.0mm is 10 percent), the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the fourth blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the third blade is 9% to 20% of the primary span (a rinse through gap of .1mm with a primary span of 1.0mm is 10 percent) and the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the fifth blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the fourth blade is 9% to 20% of the primary span (a rinse through gap of .1mm with a primary span of 1.0mm is 10 percent).
In re Claim 15, modified Gilder, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein a ratio of the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the first blade to the primary span is 1:20 to 1:5. (A rinse through gap of .1mm with a primary span of 1.0mm is 1:10.)
In re Claim 16, modified Gilder, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein a ratio of the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the first blade to the primary span is 9:100 to 1:10 (A rinse through gap of .1mm with a primary span of 1.0mm is 1:10.)
In re Claim 17, modified Clark, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the rinse gap measured between the cutting edge of the second blade and the rear face of the blade support member of the first blade is 0.05 mm to 0.20 mm (Clark teaches a rinse through gap of 0.10 mm).
In re Claim 18, modified Clark, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm (see Gilder, abstract teaching a range of 0.5mm to 1.5mm).
In re Claim 19, modified Gilder, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the primary span is less than or equal to 1.25 mm (see Gilder, abstract teaching a primary span of 0.5mm).
In re Claim 20, modified Gilder, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the primary span is greater than 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 1.25 mm (see Gilder teaching a range of 0.5mm to 1.5mm).
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