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 I.D.S. received 4-21-26 has been considered. However, this I.D.S. has NPL documents that have been lined through. It is unclear how the objection/rejection/allowance of claims with different combination of limitations is relevant to the instant application. Without any reasoning provided by Applicant, these NPL documents have not be considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 11, the phrase “wherein outer surface” should be replaced with “wherein an outer surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke et al. (2011/0146079).
With regards to claim 1, Clarke et al. disclose the invention including a cartridge (10, Fig. 4B) having a housing (19, Fig. 4B) having a primary guard at a front of the housing (16a, Fig. 4B) and a secondary cap at a rear of the housing (17, Fig. 4B), a first blade having a cutting edge (12a, Fig. 4B), the first blade mounted to the housing between the primary guard and the secondary cap (Fig. 4B), a second blade having a cutting edge (12e, Fig. 4B) extending in a same direction as the cutting edge of the first blade (Fig. 4B), the second blade mounted to the housing between the first blade and the secondary cap (Fig. 4B), the cutting edges define an interblade span (SP1 + SP5 + SP4) greater than 3mm (SP1 + SP5 + SP4 = 1mm + 2.1mm + 1mm = 4.1mm), a bridge member (14) having a primary cap surface (Fig.4B) and a secondary guard surface (Fig. 4B) positioned between the blades (Fig. 4B), and an outer surface of the bridge member defines a plane (44b, Fig. 4D), and a distance from the plane P1 to a plane tangent to the cutting edges of the blades is about 0.01mm to about 0.20mm (43, paragraph [0076]).
With regards to claims 4, 6-8, and 15, Clarke et al. disclose the bridge member is spaced apart from a blade support member of the first blade (Fig. 4B), the interblade span is about 4mm to about 5mm (SP1 + SP5 + SP4 = 1mm + 2.1mm + 1mm = 4.1mm), a span (SP0) between the primary guard and the cutting edge of the first blade is about 0.5mm to about 0.8mm (SP0 = 0.5mm), and the outer surface of the bridge member between the primary cap surface and the secondary guard surface is flat (Fig. 4B).
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 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Clarke et al. (2011/0146079).
With regards to claims 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12, Clarke et al. disclose a bridge member width (Fig. 4B), a span between the secondary guard surface and the cutting edge of the second blade (Fig. 4B), and the primary guard has a width (Fig. 4B).
However, Clarke et al. fail to disclose the width of the bridge member is greater than 50% of the interblade span between the cutting edges, the width of the bridge member is about 1.75mm to about 4mm, the span between the secondary guard and the cutting edge of the second blade is about 0.3mm to about 0.7mm, the primary guard width is about 0.35mm to about 0.85mm, and the width of the bridge member is about 2mm to about 3mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the bridge member width, the span, and the primary guard width within any reasonable range including the claimed ranges or at least close enough to the range boundary values to be considered “about” the boundary value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Clarke et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Clarke et al. (2011/0146079) in view of Wain et al. (5,802,721).
Clarke et al. disclose the invention but fail to disclose the first and second blades are the only blades
Wain et al. teach it is known in the art of cartridge having a non-cutting element/bridge (6) between blades (Fig. 4) to only incorporate first and second blades (Fig. 4). It is known in the art to alter the number of blades and it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have removed blades from Clarke et al. Even though this is not claimed, it would have been just as obvious to have added more blades to Clarke et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Clarke et al. with just two blades, as taught by Wain et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Clarke et al. (2011/0146079).
With regards to claim 16, Clarke et al. disclose the primary cap surface is arcuate (Fig. 4B).
However, Clarke et al. fail to disclose the bridge member defines a cavity opposing the outer surface and the secondary guard surface is arcuate.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the bridge member and secondary guard surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Adding a cavity to the bridge member that opposes the outer surface does not alter the function of the bridge member and reduces the amount of material needed. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Clarke et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 14 and 16. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
17 June 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights