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 Objections
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 5 recite ranges for the transverse length of the second region, however there is no space between the numbers and the units. For example, “3.6mm” should be “3.6 mm”.
Claims 10 and 11 recite “a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region” after a ratio of the transverse lengths, in addition to the two transverse lengths, have already been introduced in claim 1, creating confusion as to if this is the same ratio and same lengths or a different ratio and different lengths. Examiner recommends amending to recite “the ratio of the transverse length of the second region to the transverse length of the first region”, as the ratios and lengths described in claims 1, 10 and 11 appear to refer to the same ratio and lengths in light of the specification.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “a transverse length of the second region” after a transverse length of the second region has already been introduced in claim 1, creating confusion as to if these are the same lengths or different lengths. Examiner recommends amending to recite “the transverse length of the second region”.
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 1-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent Paul Walker Jr. (US 20210379781 A1 – hereinafter Walker Jr.).
Regarding claim 1, Walker Jr. teaches a razor cartridge (Fig. 1) configured to be connected with a razor handle ([0002]), comprising: at least one blade (Fig. 2B, Blade 18) with a cutting edge (Fig. 4B, Cutting Edge 22); a blade housing (Fig. 3A, Housing 12) accommodating the blade in a longitudinal direction, the blade housing comprising a blade window (Fig. 3A, window of Housing 12 where blades are located) exposing at least a part of the cutting edge; a first region (See annotated Fig. 1 below) located in front of the blade housing, where a longitudinal length of the razor cartridge increases progressively from rear to front; and a second region (See annotated Fig. 1 below) located in front of the first region, where the longitudinal length of the razor cartridge decreases progressively from rear to front.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Walker Jr. does not teach wherein a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region is in a range of 1 and 2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region in a range of 1 and 2 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the razor cartridge has a maximum longitudinal length of the razor cartridge at a boundary between the first region and the second region (See annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a longitudinal length at a rear end of the blade housing is longer than a longitudinal length at a front end of the second region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 2, wherein the maximum longitudinal length ranges between 33 mm and 50 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to the a maximum longitudinal length ranging between 33 mm and 50 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed length. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 2, wherein the maximum longitudinal length ranges between 37 mm and 46 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to the a maximum longitudinal length ranging between 37 mm and 46 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed length. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, further comprising a first functional unit (Fig. 2A, Primary Guard 14) located at least partially on the first region.
Walker Jr. does not teach that the first functional unit is additionally located at a boundary between the first region and the second region, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the first functional unit as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 6, wherein the first functional unit includes at least one of an elastic guard, guard pins, a lubricating band, a comb, or a scrubber (Fig. 1, Primary Guard 14). Walker Jr. is silent as to the material of the guard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Walker Jr. such that the primary guard is comprised of an elastic material as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 6, further comprising a second functional unit (See the item circled in annotated 2A below) located at least partially on the second region and configured to perform a function different from the first functional unit (Fig. 2B, the structure portrayed in the drawings is such that the second functional unit can be used for scrubbing).
PNG
media_image2.png
607
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 8, wherein the second functional unit includes at least one of an elastic guard, guard pins, a lubricating band, a comb, or a scrubber (See the item circled in annotated 2A below - Fig. 2B, the structure portrayed in the drawings is such that the second functional unit can be used for scrubbing, and therefore it is considered by the examiner to be a scrubber).
Regarding claim 10, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region is in a range of 1.25 and 1.92. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region in a range of 1.25 and 1.92 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region is in a range of 1.36 and 1.84. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a ratio of a transverse length of the second region to a transverse length of the first region in a range of 1.36 and 1.84 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a ratio of an area of the first region and the second region to a total area of the razor cartridge is in a range of 0.5 and 0.85. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a ratio of an area of the first region and the second region to a total area of the razor cartridge is in a range of 0.5 and 0.85 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0077]).
Regarding claim 15, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a ratio of an area of the first region and the second region to a total area of the razor cartridge is in a range of 0.6 and 0.75. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a ratio of an area of the first region and the second region to a total area of the razor cartridge is in a range of 0.6 and 0.75 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Walker Jr. would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0077]).
Regarding claim 16, Walker Jr. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the blade housing includes a third region (Fig. 1, region located laterally to the blade window, above the first region) located laterally to the blade window and supporting the blade, and connected with the first region.
Walker Jr. does not teach wherein the third region has a longitudinal length that progressively increases toward the front. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the third region of Walker Jr. to be shaped this way as it has been held that 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent Paul Walker Jr. (US 20210379781 A1 – hereinafter Walker Jr.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vincent P. Walker et al. (US 20050198830 A1 – hereinafter Walker).
Regarding claim 12, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a transverse length of the second region is in a range of 3.6 mm and 5.5 mm.
However, Walker teaches a razor cartridge with a transverse length (Fig. 23, wf) of a second region in a range of 3.6 mm to 5.5 mm ([0099] – anticipated by a range of 3.5 mm to 6 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a transverse length of the second region in the aforementioned range. Doing so is beneficial as the weight carried between the different portions of the cartridges is more even during use (Walker; [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, Walker Jr. does not teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a transverse length of the second region is in a range of 3.6 mm and 5.5 mm.
However, Walker teaches a razor cartridge with a transverse length (Fig. 23, wf) of a second region in a range of 4.1 mm to 5.1 mm ([0099] – anticipated by a range of 3.5 mm to 6 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Walker Jr. to have a transverse length of the second region in the aforementioned range. Doing so is beneficial as the weight carried between the different portions of the cartridges is more even during use (Walker; [0102]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights