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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follo (US 2011/0023307) in view of 2014/0373362.
Regarding claim 1, Follow discloses shaving system (figure 1, Title, inter alia), comprising a blade head frame (figure 3A) and a blade (figure 5, inter ali) assembled on the blade head frame (Figure 3A, 4A, 4B inter alia), wherein the blade head frame is provided with a front sidewall (Shown in left side in figure 4) located in front of the blade (meaning in the shaving direction;), and the blade extends in a left-right direction of the blade head frame (See figure 3A), with a cutting edge of the blade facing the front sidewall of the blade head frame (See figure 4), the front sidewall of the blade head frame is provided with a protective member located in front of the blade, and a supporting sidewall between the protective member and the blade, see annotated Figure 4, below :
PNG
media_image1.png
220
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Follo does not explicitly discuss either “an upper surface of the protective member is higher than an upper surface of the supporting sidewall by 0.05-0.80 mm” or that “the upper surface of the supporting sidewall is higher than the cutting edge of the blade adjacent to the supporting sidewall by 0.01-0.32 mm.” as claimed.
These are statements of the sizes of the relation between the guard surface, the protective element surface, and the blade, which are well known throughout the art of shaving razors to be result effective -- that is they are understood to affect the feel and quality of shave by adjusting the ‘perceived’ exposure of the blade, based on the dimensions between each surface the skin is contacting.
In general, selecting the size of a thing which is known is not inventive—since any person of ordinary skill would be expected to select an appropriate size.
It has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
Similarly, It has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Let us also draw on the known art to see the routine sizes which are known for these dimensions in use.
For example, the blade exposure (the amount the blade is ‘below’ the supporting sidewall, in this instance, is discussed in Follo : “[0013] According to another aspect of the present invention, the blade exposure of the first blade, as defined hereinbelow, can be slightly negative (i.e., between 0.00 mm and -0.15”….” This actually anticipates the second clause noted above -- “the upper surface of the supporting sidewall is higher than the cutting edge of the blade adjacent to the supporting sidewall by 0.01-0.32 mm.” as claimed. This also shows that the manipulation of sizes in shavers on the order of and approximately .05 to .3 mm is an ordinary size range to adjust close contact parameters.
Follo does not specify that the supporting sidewall and the protective member are at different heights—and they appear roughly the same height.
In the art however, it is well known to adjust the heights of a leading guard portion (protective analog) and the trailing guard (supporting sidewall analog)—See, among numerous examples cited in the PTO-892 : 2014/0373362:
PNG
media_image2.png
302
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown above, when a skin contacting arrangement of several heights is known in the art of shaving razor cartridges (‘362 reference, above) it is demonstrably shown that the leading portion can be set higher than the blade-adjacent portion, and the gap is explicitly noted in ‘362 which is evidence that the ordinary designer knows this is a variable to be manipulated—to achieve the ends of the designer.
‘362 specifies: “ [0065] The blade edge 22 of each of the blades 20 provided in the housing 24 can have an exposure which is positive, negative, or null (equal to zero) with regard to the shaving plane P2. When the blade unit is provided with at least two blades 20 having the same exposure, a cutting edge plane (not illustrated) corresponding to the plane in contact with the two cutting edges 22 can be defined. When the blade unit is provided with several blades 20, the exposure of the blade edges can be progressively continuous, increasing, and/or decreasing from one blade to the other. The cutting edge plane is above the shaving plane P2 when the blades exposure is positive, and the cutting edge plane is below the shaving plane P2 when the blades exposure is negative. The cutting edge plane and the shaving plane P2 coincide when the exposure of the blades is equal to zero with regard to said shaving plane P2. When the blades are movable, the exposure is given in their at-rest position.” In other words—the designer can specify what height gaps they like positive, negative or null / neutral.
Further ‘362 discusses some of the reasons those of ordinary skill know to manipulate skin contacting surfaces in shavers: “[0080] During shaving, the razor 10 is applied against the skin to be shaved. Some parts of the razor thus enter in contact with the skin and forces act in reaction to this application of the razor against the skin S (see FIG. 9). The force distribution is to be connected to the surface of the razor in contact with the skin. The an [sic] embodiments of the present invention optimize the surface in contact with the skin in order to obtain a safer shaving and provide a pleasurable shaving experience (improved gliding, softness, and/or skin hydration, as well as reduced shaving time).”
Because applicant is merely specifying sizes of a device that is already known, and suitable for the routine optimization or adjustment of the dimensions specified—it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the gaps between the ‘protective member’ the ‘supporting sidewall’ and the blades of a razor, since adjusting those dimensions affects the perceived ‘exposure’ of the blade (how much the blade engages with the face when shaving, and therefore the manipulation of those sizes clearly will impact the shave quality and permit a technician in the art to adjust the sizes to conform with a desired outcome (comfort, aggressiveness/cleanness of shave, ‘pull’ or friction in opposition to the draw of the blade etc. as explicitly motivated by the ‘362 reference)
Regarding claim 2, Follo further discloses wherein one or more blades are included (Figure 3A, Figure 4, inter alia); when multiple blades are included, the multiple blades are arranged sequentially spaced in a front-back direction of the blade head frame (Again, as seen in figures 3, 4, etc.); or the multiple blades are stacked sequentially upward in an up-down direction of the blade head frame and staggered backward (alternative limitation, need not be shown).
Regarding claim 3, Follo shows the arrangement claimed, where among all the blades arranged sequentially spaced, a reference plane is defined between cutting edges of two blades nearest to the supporting sidewall, with the upper surface of the supporting sidewall being higher than the reference plane by 0.015-0.235 mm (As noted above, the negative setback of the blades from the sidewall is discussed in Follo, noted above, as between “0.00 mm and -0.15…” overlapping with the claimed size. If there is any question about the nature of the disclosed size, the logic about adjusting the sizes still remains, and renders this clause prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4 Follo clearly shows “all the blades arranged sequentially spaced, cutting edges of remaining blades are located within the reference plane.” In figures 3, 4, inter alia.
Regarding claim 5, Follo plainly shows the front sidewall further comprises a separating groove that separates the upper surface of the supporting sidewall from the upper surface of the protective member in the front-back direction of the blade head frame (to the left of the wall shown in figure 4, inter alia), with the separating groove extending in the left-right direction of the blade head frame (indicated in the dash of figure 3a).
Regarding claim 6, Follo further discloses the protective member is provided with multiple recessed grooves that extend in the left-right direction of the blade head frame and are arranged sequentially spaced in the front-back direction of the blade head frame, with the recessed grooves penetrating upward through the upper surface of the protective member (As seen in figure 3A—while this is not the same configuration envisioned by applicant, the diagonally curved grooves shown in Follo do read on each portion of this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, the protective member and the front sidewall are formed in an integrated unity; or the protective member is connected to the front sidewall in an assembled manner (Follo shows them assembled together, as seen in inter alia, figure 7 or 4).
Regarding claim 10, Follo discloses a retainer to clamp the blade together with the blade head frame, with the retainer pressing against the blade from above (Visible blade clip is seen in figure 7-7A lateral to the shaving plane face of the blades, and seen in profile contacting the blades in , e.g. Figure 9). Additionally, the details of a retaining clip are seen in the cited art ‘362 at clip 23, throughout.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follo (US 2011/0023307) in view of 2014/0373362 as applied to claim1-6 above, and further in view of US 6,161,288 and US 5,794,343.
Regarding claim 7, Follo does not disclose “the recessed grooves extend continuously or intermittently, and the recessed grooves also penetrate left and right side surfaces of the protective member.” As noted above, the Follo protective member is of a different type than that disclosed and imagined by applicant—though applicant’s style of protective member (guard/ fins) is known in the art, as set forth below: See US 6,161,288 which shows an elastomer protective member in the guard (and cap) position of a shaving cartridge with blades, and as seen in figures 71- 72 1014R is one of the fins defining left-right channels which extend continuously to ‘penetrate left and right’ surfaces of the protective member—as seen at the side ends of the grooves shown in figure 71.
See also, 31, 32, 33 of Figure 1 in US 5,794,343 which is also a lateral penetrating groove of the protective member of a shaving cartridge.
It would have been obvious to make the protective member of Follo consistent with or inspired by other known protective members, seen in the art at US 5,794,343 and US 6,161,288 for the same purpose.
It has been held that the combination of elements known in the prior art to be used in accordance with their known functions is unpatentable as a matter of law absent a showing that the combination has results which are unexpectedly advantageous over the prior art. Please see Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. U.S. Supreme Court No. 75-110 425 US 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976), Which states “patent[s] for combination that only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions withdraws what is already known into field of its monopoly and diminishes resources available to skillful men” and [a] patent [which] simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations…are not patentable under standards appropriate for a combination patent”; also see Anderson’s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc. U.S. Supreme Court 396 US 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969) which states “while the combination of old elements performed a useful function, it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented”. Similarly here, the use of grooves exactly like those already known in the art combines with other known features (shaving blades, walls, etc. ) is just the combination of old elements according to their known functions.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. _____(2007) affirmed both Sakraida and Anderson’s requirement that to be patentable a combination needed to provide some synergistic effect. See Slip op. at 13 lines 3-19. Using known elements for their known functions is as a matter of law not patentable, since it removes resources available to skillful men, contrary to U.S. Const., Art. I §8, cl.8. which provides patent monopolies to promote the progress of useful arts. See Slip op. KSR at 24 lines 5-7.
Each of the elements claimed are known as seen in the cited prior art (above); their combination is unpatentable absent a showing that one of ordinary skill would be unable to effect their combination, or their combination provides unexpectedly good results (more than a duplicated effect).
Regarding claim 8, US 5,794,343 shows a chamfer structure is provided at front and rear groove walls of the recessed grooves respectively, thereby expanding upper groove openings of the recessed grooves as seen plainly in figures 9 and 10, inter alia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724