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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Species A – figures 2-10;
Species B – figure 11;
Species C – figure 12;
Species D – figure 13; and
Species E – figure 14.
The species are independent or distinct because each one of the species has at least a unique feature that is not presented in other species. Species have mutually exclusive characteristic. Each of these characteristics are mutually exclusive to the respective embodiment. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
2. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there is no generic claim.
3. Applicant is advised that a reply to this requirement must include an identification of the species that is elected consonant with this requirement, and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
4. The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election and/or species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
5. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
6. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise include all the limitations of an allowed generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which are readable upon the elected species. MPEP § 809.02(a).
7. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
8. During a telephone conversation with Heungsoo Choi (Reg. No. 69,282) on 12/09/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A (Figs. 2-10), claims 1-13 and 16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-15 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
9. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
10. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase s that can be implied such as “A razor cartridge is proposed,” “The cartridge may include,” and “The cartridge may further include.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract is also objected because includes “59794087” in the abstract sheet which is not part of the abstract.
Claim Objections
11. Claims 7-8 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: in
claims 7-8, “value of 0” should be --value of zero--. In claim 12, “a gap between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge” should be –a third gap between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge--. In claim 13, “the gap between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge” should be –the third gap between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-13 and 16 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, the recitation “the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge are exposed toward the front between the guard and the cap” is unclear. It is not apparent what direction “the front” refers to. It is unclear whether “the front” is intended to refer to the front of the blade housing or the front of the first blade. Accordingly, the term “toward the front” lacks sufficient clarity and renders the limitation indefinite.
Regarding claims 7-8, the phrase “a protrusion value of 0” is unclear. The claims do not specify what constitutes a protrusion value, how protrusion is measured, or what reference plane or measurement method produces a value of zero. Without a clear definition of “protrusion value,” the scope of the limitation cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “wherein a boundary between the first edge portion and the first base portion is located above a boundary between the second edge portion and the second base portion” is unclear. The claim does not specify the reference orientation for determining what constitutes “above,” nor does it explain how the relative boundary positions are determined. It appears that the claim intends to specify that the height of the first base portion is longer than the height of the first base portion, as recited in claim 11. However, claim 10 as written is confusing with respect to how the boundary of the first edge/base portion is located above the boundary of the second edge/base portion. This language could be misconstrued as referring to the entire first blade being positioned above the second blade.
Regarding claim 12, “the rear” lacks antecedent basis. In addition, “the gap between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge” is unclear, as it is not apparent whether “the gap” is intended to refer to “a first gap” introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the gap between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge” is unclear for the same reason noted above. It is not clear whether “the gap” is intended to reference “a first gap” recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1, 4-13, and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang Se jun (KR 20230081040 a), hereinafter Jang. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Jang teaches a razor cartridge 100, comprising: a first blade 210 comprising a first base portion 212 and a first edge portion 213 forming a predetermined angle with the first base portion 211 and having a first cutting edge 213; a second blade 200 located adjacent to the rear of the first blade 210, the second blade comprising a second base 201 portion and a second edge portion 202 forming a predetermined angle with the second base portion 201 and having a second cutting edge 203; and a blade housing 110 comprising a guard 130 and a cap 120 defining a shaving plane (F; Fig. 4a), the blade housing accommodating the first blade 210 and the second blade 200 such that the first cutting edge 213 and the second cutting edge 203 are exposed toward the front (“the front” is defined as the top surface or face of the cartridge housing 110, in Fig. 3, wherein the cutting edges are exposed towards the front) between the guard 130 and the cap 120, wherein a first gap (defined as the space between the two blades 210, 200; Fig. 3) between the first cutting edge 213 and the second cutting edge 203 is greater than a second gap (defined as the space between the base portion 211 and base portion 201; Fig. 3) between the first base portion 211 and the second base portion 201, measured along a direction parallel to a virtual straight line passing through the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge. See Figs. 1-4a in Jang. It should be noted that the claim does not clearly define what is considered to be “the front” between the guard and the cap. In this case, the front could be defined as the main face of the cartridge from which the cutting edges are exposed.
It should be noted that in an alternatively rejection of claim 1, the first blade could be designated as blade 200 and the second blade could be designated as blade 210. In this case, Jang also discloses all the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Jang teaches everything noted above induing that a space between the first edge portion 212 and the second edge portion 202 forms a first rinsing channel (as shown in Fig. 3); and a space between the first base portion 211 and the second base portion 201 forms a second rinsing channel in communication with the first rinsing channel.
Regarding claim 5, Jang teaches everything noted above induing that the first rinsing channel comprises a rinsing opening (define by the opening or entrance to the first channel between the cutting edges 213, 203 of the blade portions 212, 202; Fig. 3) as a space between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge; and a width of the first rinsing channel becomes smaller as moving from the rinsing opening toward the second rinsing channel. It should be noted that the width of the first rinsing channel narrows from the cutting edges (213, 203) of the blades towards the bending portion of the blades. See Fig. 3 in Jang.
Regarding claim 6, Jang teaches everything noted above including that a width of the second rinsing channel is the same or becomes smaller as moving away from the first rinsing channel. It should be noted that the width of the second rinsing channel, measured between the inner walls of the base portions (211, 201), remains constant from the top portion to the bottom portion of the channel.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Jang teaches everything noted above including that the first cutting edge has a protrusion value of 0 or a negative protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane. It should be noted that if, alternatively, the first blade is considered as blade 200 and the second blade is considered as blade 210 in the rejection of claim 1, then the first cutting edge would be 203, which has a zero-protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane (F) since it is located at the shaving plane.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Jang teaches everything noted above including that the second cutting edge 203 has a protrusion value of 0 or a positive protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane (F). It should be noted that the second cutting edge 203 has a zero-protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane 10 since it is located at the shaving plane.
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches everything noted above including an angle between the first edge portion 212 and the first base portion 211 is smaller than an angle between the second edge portion 202 the second base portion 201. It should be noted that the angle between the first edge portion 212 and the first base portion 211 is inherently smaller than the angle between the second edge portion and the second base portion, because the first edge portion 211 is bent less than the second edge portion 201 relative to their respective base portions. See Figs. 3-4a in Jang.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Jang teaches everything noted above including that a boundary between the first edge portion 212 and the first base portion 211 is located above a boundary between the second edge portion 202 and the second base portion 201. See annotated Fig. 4a below. The difference between the boundaries of the blades is shown as D1.
Regarding claim 11, Jang teaches everything noted above including a vertical length of the first base portion 211 is formed to be longer than a vertical length of the second base portion 201. Because the first boundary is higher than the second boundary, the vertical length of the first base portion 211 is therefore longer than the vertical length of the second base portion 201. See annotated Fig. 4a below.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Jang teaches everything noted above including a third blade 220 located adjacent to the rear of the second blade (212, which could alternatively be selected as the second blade in rejection of claim 1). The rear of the second blade 210 is considered to be by the side of the second blade facing the third blade 220 (Fig. 3 ). Jang also discloses that the third blade 220 comprising a third edge portion 222 having a third base portion 221 and a third cutting edge 223, wherein the gap between the first cutting edge (203, as the cutting edge of the blade 200, which is alternatively could be selected as the first blade in rejection of claim 1) and the second cutting edge 213 is greater than a gap between the second cutting edge 213 and the third cutting edge 223. See Fig. 3 in Jang.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Jang teaches everything noted above including a ratio of the gap between the second cutting edge 213 and the third cutting edge 223 to the gap between the first cutting edge 203 and the second cutting edge 213 is greater than a ratio of a lateral gap between the second base portion 211 and the third base portion 221 to a lateral gap between the first base portion 201 and the second base portion 211. It should be noted that the gap between the first and second cutting edges (203, 213) is approximately three times larger than the gap between the second and third cutting edges (213, 223), producing a ratio of approximately 1:3. In contrast, the gap between the second base portion 211 and the third base portion 221 is approximately twice the gap between the first base portion 201 and the second base portion 211 (Fig. 3), producing a ration of approximately 1:2. Therefore, the ratio of the gap between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge to the gap between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge (1:3) is greater than a ratio of a lateral gap between the second base portion and the third base portion to a lateral gap between the first base portion and the second base portion (1:2).
Regarding claim 16, Jang teaches everything noted above including that the first blade 210 and the second blade 200 have the same shape (as clearly shown in Fig. 3).
16. Claims 1-8 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Eibergen (WO 2004112989 A1), hereinafter Eibergen. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Eibergen teaches a razor cartridge, comprising: a first blade 4 comprising a first base portion 8 and a first edge portion 6 forming a predetermined angle (at the bending portion 9; Fig, 2) with the first base portion 8 and having a first cutting edge 7; a second blade 4 located adjacent to the rear of the first blade 4, the second blade comprising a second base 8 portion and a second edge portion 6 forming a predetermined angle with the second base portion 8 and having a second cutting edge 7; and a blade housing 3 comprising a guard (defined as the front wall of the housing 3 that contacts the user’s face before the blades 4; Fig. 1) and a cap (defined as the rear wall of the housing 3 that contacts the user’s after the blades 4) defining a shaving plane 10 (Fig. 4), the blade housing accommodating the first blade 4 and the second blade 4 such that the first cutting edge 7 and the second cutting edge 7 are exposed toward the front between the guard and the cap, wherein a first gap (b) between the first cutting edge 7 and the second cutting edge 7 is greater than a second gap (defined as gap b without thickness a) between the first base portion 8 and the second base portion 8, measured along a direction parallel to a virtual straight line passing through the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge. It should be noted that the distance or gap (b) between blade bases includes the blade thickness (a) which is equal to the gap (b) between the cutting edges of the blades. However, the proper gap between the blade basses should be measured from inner wall of the first blade base to the inner wall of the second blade base. Accordingly, the blade thickness (a) is not part of the gap (b) between the blade bases. When the gap between the blade basses is measured from inner wall to inner wall –the gap between the cutting edges (b) is greater than the gap between the inner walls of the basses, which exclude the blade thickness (a).
Regarding claims 2-3, Eibergen teaches everything noted including that a difference between the first gap and the second gap has a value between 0.01 mm and 0.35 mm; and a ratio of the first gap to the second gap has a value between 1.05 and 1.50. Eibergen teaches that a gap (b) between cutting edges 7 of blades 4 of a cartridge is larger than a gap between inner walls of bases of the blades 4, when the blade thickness (a) is not included. The gab (b) between the inner blades actually does includes the thickness (a) of one of the blades 4 (Fig. 2). In this case, the gap between the inner walls of opposing blade bases is less than the gap (b). Eibergen also teaches that the gap (b) between the cutting edges is about 0.8 mm, 1, mm, or 1.2 mm (which falls within the range specified above; see page 4, lines 15-20) and the gap between the bases (which does not include the thickness “a” of the blade 4) is 0.1 mm less than the gab (b), as the thickness of the blade is 0.1 mm (see page 4, lines 26-27). Consequently, the resulting ratio of the first gap to the second gap falls between 1.05 and 1.50.
Regarding claim 4, Eibergen teaches everything noted above induing that a space between the first edge portion 6 and the second edge portion 7 forms a first rinsing channel (Fig. 2); and a space between the first base portion 8 and the second base portion 8 forms a second rinsing channel in communication with the first rinsing channel.
Regarding claim 5, Eibergen teaches everything noted above induing that the first rinsing channel comprises a rinsing opening (define by the opening between the cutting edges 7 of the blade portions 6; Fig. 2) as a space between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge; and a width of the first rinsing channel becomes smaller as moving from the rinsing opening toward the second rinsing channel. It should be noted that the width of the first rinsing channel narrows from the cutting edges 7 towards the bending portion 9 because the thickness of each blade portion increases from the cutting edges toward the bending portion.
Regarding claim 6, Eibergen teaches everything noted above including that a width of the second rinsing channel is the same or becomes smaller as moving away from the first rinsing channel. It should be noted that the width of the second rinsing channel, measured between the inner walls of the base portions (8), remains constant from the top portion of the second channel to the bottom portion of the second channel.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Eibergen teaches everything noted above including that the first cutting edge 7 has a protrusion value of 0 or a negative protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane 10. It should be noted that the first cutting edge has a zero-protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane 10 because it is located at the shaving plane.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Eibergen teaches everything noted above including that the second cutting edge 7 has a protrusion value of 0 or a positive protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane 10. It should be noted that the second cutting edge 7 has a zero-protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane 10 because it is located at the shaving plane.
Regarding claim 16, Eibergen teaches everything noted above including that the first blade 4 and the second blade 4 have the same shape (as clearly shown in Fig. 2).
17. Claims 1, 4-13, and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 20170023059 A), hereinafter Park. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Park teaches a razor cartridge 10, comprising: a first blade (200a) comprising a first base portion 230 and a first edge portion 220 forming a predetermined angle (A21) with the first base portion 230 and having a first cutting edge 211; a second blade (200b) located adjacent to the rear of the first blade (200a), the second blade comprising a second base 230 portion and a second edge portion 220 forming a predetermined angle (A22; Fig. 7b) with the second base portion 230 and having a second cutting edge 211; and a blade housing 100 comprising a guard (100a; Fig. 8b) and a cap (100b; Fig. 8b) defining a shaving plane (P1), the blade housing accommodating the first blade (200a) and the second blade (200b) such that the first cutting edge 211 and the second cutting edge 211 are exposed toward the front between the guard and the cap, wherein a first gap (Sn2; Fig. 7b) between the first cutting edge 211 and the second cutting edge 211 is greater than a second gap (Sp2; annotated Fig. 7b below) between the first base portion 230 and the second base portion 230, measured along a direction parallel to a virtual straight line passing through the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge. It should be noted that the first gap (Sn2) is larger than the second gap because the cutting edges 211 of the are tapered and create a larger gap between the cutting edges 211 than the second gap between the bases 230 of the first and second blades (200a, 200b). It is noted that the first gap (Sn2) is larger than the second gap because the cutting edges 211 are tapered, resulting in a larger separation between the cutting edges 211 than between the base portions 230 of the first and second blades (200a, 200b). In the annotated Fig. 7b below, the line drawn between the base portions 230 of the blades is placed alongside the line representing (Sn2). It is therefore clear that the gap (Sn2) is larger than the gap (Sp2) as shown in annotated Fig. 7b below. This is also evidenced in Eibergen, which teaches that the gap (b) between the cutting edges 7 of the blades 4 is larger than the gap between the inner walls of the bases of the blades 4, when the blade thickness (a) is not included. It should be noted that the distance or gap (b) between blade bases includes the blade thickness (a) which is equal to the gap (b) between the cutting edges of the blades. However, the proper gap between the blade basses should be measured from inner wall of the first blade base to the inner wall of the second blade base. Accordingly, the blade thickness (a) is not part of the gap (b) between the blade bases. When the gap between the blade basses is measured from inner wall to inner wall –the gap between the cutting edges (b) is greater than the gap between the inner walls of the basses, which exclude the blade thickness (a). See Fig. 2 in Eibergen.
PNG
media_image2.png
849
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches everything noted above induing that a space between the first edge portion and the second edge portion forms a first rinsing channel (FRC: annotated Fig. 7b above); and a space between the first base portion 230 and the second base portion 230 forms a second rinsing channel (SRC; annotated Fig. 7B above) formed by the space between the bases 230; Fig. 7b) in communication with the first rinsing channel.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches everything noted above induing that the first rinsing channel comprises a rinsing opening (FRO; annotated Fig. 7b above) as a space between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge; and a width of the first rinsing channel becomes smaller as moving from the rinsing opening toward the second rinsing channel (SRC). See annotated Fig. 7b above.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches everything noted above including that a width of the second rinsing channel (SRC) is the same or becomes smaller as moving away from the first rinsing channel. It should be noted that the width of the second rinsing channel (SRC) as the channel extents from a top portion to a bottom portion shown in annotated Fig. 7b.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Park teaches everything noted above including that the first cutting edge 211 has a protrusion value of 0 or a negative protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane (SP); annotated Fig. 7b above). It should be noted that the cutting edge of the first blade is at the shaving plane and therefore has a protrusion value of zero. However, the cutting edge of the second blade is slightly above the shaving plane (SP; as shown in annotated Fig. 7b above) and therefore has a positive protrusion value.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Park teaches everything noted above including that the second cutting edge has a protrusion value of 0 or a positive protrusion value with respect to the shaving plane (SP; annotated Fig. 7b above).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches everything noted above including an angle (A21) between the first edge portion 200 and the first base portion 230 is smaller than an angle (A22) between the second edge portion and the second base portion. See the third paragraph of page 10 of the attached translation.
Regarding claim 10, s best understood, Park teaches everything noted above including that a boundary between the first edge portion and the first base portion is located above a boundary between the second edge portion and the second base portion. See annotated Fig. 7b, where the difference between the first and second boundaries (DB) is shown.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches everything noted above including a vertical length of the first base portion is formed to be longer than a vertical length of the second base portion. Because the first boundary is higher than the second boundary, the vertical length of the first base portion is therefore longer than the vertical length of the second base portion.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Park teaches everything noted above including a third blade (200c; Fig. 10) located adjacent to the rear of the second blade (200b) and comprising a third edge portion 220 having a third base portion 230 and a third cutting edge 211, wherein the gap (Sn2) between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge is greater than a gap (Sn3) between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge. It should be noted that Park teaches Sn1>Sn2>Sn3>Sn4>Sn5> Sn6. See Fig. 10 and the fourth paragraph of page 11 of the attached translation. In this case the Sn2 is greater than Sn3.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Park teaches everything noted above including a ratio of the gap (Sn3) between the second cutting edge and the third cutting edge to the gap (Sn2) between the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge is greater than a ratio of a lateral gap between the second base portion and the third base portion to a lateral gap between the first base portion and the second base portion. It should be noted that the lateral gabs between the bases of the first, second, and third blades are smaller than the gaps between the cutting edges of those blades, since the cutting edges are slightly tapered at the tip, resulting in the gaps between the cutting edges being larger than the lateral gaps between their bases.
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches everything noted above including that the first blade (200a) and the second blade (200b) have the same shape (as clearly shown in Fig. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claims 2-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Eibergen. Regarding claims 2-3, Park teaches everything noted, but Park does not explicitly teach that a difference between the first gap and the second gap has a value between 0.01 mm and 0.35 mm; and a ratio of the first gap to the second gap has a value between 1.05 and 1.50. It should be noted that the gap Sn2 is slightly larger than the gap SP2 (as shown in annotated Fig. 7b above). The difference between the gaps appears to be within the ranged specified above. However, Eibergen teaches that a gap (b) between cutting edges 7 of blades 4 of a cartridge is larger than a gap between inner walls of bases of the blades 4, when the blade thickness (a) is not included. The gab (b) between the inner blades actually does includes the thickness (a) of one of the blades 4 (Fig. 2). In this case, the gap between the inner walls of opposing blade bases is less than the gap (b). Eibergen also teaches that the gap (b) between the cutting edges is about 0.8 mm, 1, mm, or 1.2 mm (which is within the range specified above; page 4, lines 15-20) and the gap between the bases (which does not include the thickness “a” of the blade 4) is 0.1 mm less than the gab (b), as the thickness of the blade is 0.1 mm (page 4, lines 26-27). Therefore, a ratio of the first gap to the second gap has a value between 1.05 and 1.50. It would have been an obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the size of the gaps of Park’s blades, as taught by Eibergen, in order to position the blades closer together in the shaving direction while still providing facilitated flushing of shaving debris. See page 3, lines 18-21 and lines 31-32 in Eibergen.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Wang et al. (2010/0011588 A1), Peterson et al. (2012/0110857 A1), Hooberman (11,000,960 B1), and Oglesby (2014/0026424 A1) teach a razer cartridge.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
December 10, 2025