Field
Embodiments of the invention relate to a shaving razor. More particularly, embodiments of the invention relate to a shaving razor having at least one exposed reciprocating blade.
Background
There are two main classes of shaving razors that dominate the market. There are electric razors, which have one or more cutting implements behind a screen or other protective barrier, where the cutting elements are powered to, for example, spin such that hair penetrating the screen or barrier is cut. The advantage of these types of razors is after the initial purchase, a large number of shaves are possible without replacing the device or parts thereof. Unfortunately, electric razors are typically somewhat bulky, making it difficult to get into tight spaces, for example, around a user's nose. Additionally, even in open spaces such as a user's cheek, the closeness of the shave generally does not match that which is possible with exposed-blade razors. This lack of closeness is due at least impart to the dimension of the barrier. Even relatively thin micro-screens have a thickness that dictates the maximum closeness of the shave. That is, the shave can be no closer than the thickness of the screen.
The second class of razors in common use today is exposed-blade razors, which have one or more blades arranged in a cartridge. A user pulls the cartridge across the area to be shaved, and the blades provide a shave that is generally closer than possible with an electric razor, owing to the fact that the blades are in direct contact with the user's skin and the dimension of the protective shield of the electric razors need not be accommodated. Commonly, three, four, or even five blades are aligned to cut in the same shaving direction. Even where multiple blades are present, the leading blade performs the most of the cutting. As used herein, “leading” when modifying blade refers to the first blade to come in contact with the hair in the direction of shaving. As a result, the leading blade dulls more quickly than the other blades. Often, the dullness of the leading blade requires replacement of the cartridge while the remaining blades are perfectly serviceable.
Some razor manufacturers have come up with “power” models of their exposed blade razors. These razors include a battery in the handle and a motor with an eccentric mass such that when powered, the entire razor vibrates. In these models, the blades do not actually move; rather, the entire device vibrates. This feature has been heavily advertised, but market research reflects that it fails to provide any real benefit to the user, and the majority of users do not replace the battery once it goes dead. Studies have not revealed that power models have longer cartridge life or improved cutting efficacy over the unpowered models. Rather, these “power” exposed blade razors appear to be little more than a marketing gimmick
Embodiments of the invention are illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements. It should be noted that different references to “an” or “one” embodiment in this disclosure are not necessarily to the same embodiment, and such references mean at least one.
Cartridges 108 are coupled to cross-members 106 in a fixed manner. Cartridge 110 is coupled to allow it to reciprocate, as explained below in more detail with reference to
In this embodiment, since cartridge 110 contains the leading blade and is therefore responsible for a disproportionate amount of the cutting effort, by reciprocating this blade, the hair is cut more efficiently with reduced dulling of the blade. This has been found to significantly increase the useful life of shaving assembly 100. More specifically, the reciprocation results in a sawing effect when the blade encounters a hair. By analogy, a knife must be much sharper to cut with pressure alone than with a sawing motion. Similarly, here, the reciprocation allows the blade to cut more efficiently. It reduces the dulling effect on cutting and allows for more effective cutting with a duller blade than possible with conventional techniques. The more effective cutting reduces the pulling and tugging. Cartridges employing this reciprocating technique have been found to last up to a year without replacement.
Testing has revealed that reciprocation of less than 0.1 mm is not effective in increasing blade life or increasing the efficacy in cutting the hair to be shaved. Reciprocation greater than 0.5 mm significantly increases the risk of nicks and cuts during use. As a result the range r is chosen to be in the range of 0.1-0.5.mm and approximately 0.2 mm has be found to be effective without increased cut risk. While in some embodiments the arm 116 and 118 may limit the reciprocation of the blade, the slots 330 provide hard stops and ensure the blade will not move beyond that limit. This provides a safety margin in the event that any other restriction on the blade movement is compromised.
As noted above, it is desirable to limit the relative motion between cartridges 410 and 408 to less than 0.5 mm. It has been found that relative motion in excess of 0.5 mm increases the risk of nicks and cuts for the user. It has also been found that a range of motion less than 0.1 mm fails to provide the desired utility. Thus, the range of motion between 0.1 and 0.5 mm is desirable (the reduced upper bound provides an additional safety margin), and 0.2 mm has been found satisfactory. As shown in
While this embodiment uses a mechanical actuator, embodiments with a magnetic actuator moving more than one blade are also within the scope and contemplation of the invention. For example, the embodiment of
In the foregoing specification, the embodiments of the invention have been described with reference to specific embodiments thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes can be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3413718 | Baumann | Dec 1968 | A |
3631595 | Scott | Jan 1972 | A |
4174569 | Schenk | Nov 1979 | A |
4744144 | Lowery, Sr. | May 1988 | A |
5152064 | Johnston | Oct 1992 | A |
D343922 | Ahlgren | Feb 1994 | S |
5307564 | Schoenberg | May 1994 | A |
5504997 | Lee | Apr 1996 | A |
5732470 | Labarbara | Mar 1998 | A |
5794342 | Davey | Aug 1998 | A |
D423143 | Cowell | Apr 2000 | S |
6158126 | Rose, Jr. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161288 | Andrews | Dec 2000 | A |
6434828 | Andrews | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442840 | Zucker | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6502312 | Beutel | Jan 2003 | B2 |
7086160 | Coffin | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7797834 | Steunenberg | Sep 2010 | B2 |
8479398 | Coresh | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8595940 | Coresh | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8707561 | Kneier | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8726517 | Lau | May 2014 | B2 |
9144914 | Coresh | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9457486 | Coresh | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9630332 | Coresh | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9821480 | Coresh | Nov 2017 | B2 |
10357891 | Coresh | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10414057 | Ntavos | Sep 2019 | B2 |
10500746 | Coresh | Dec 2019 | B2 |
20050188540 | Kelly | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060064875 | Follo | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20080034592 | Smith et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20110131812 | Erndt | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120151772 | Moon | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20130160296 | Park et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20140259677 | Coresh | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150266192 | Coresh | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20160001454 | Coresh | Jan 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2731538 | Jan 2010 | CA |
2942900 | Sep 2015 | CA |
184913 | Aug 1922 | GB |
290796 | May 1928 | GB |
2462086 | Jan 2010 | GB |
20140053107 | May 2014 | KR |
WO 2010010517 | Jun 2010 | WO |
WO 2013003484 | Apr 2013 | WO |
WO 2015142526 | Sep 2015 | WO |
WO 2016053664 | Apr 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA in PCT/US2015/51265 mailed Dec. 17, 2015. 7 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14500217 | Sep 2014 | US |
Child | 16390387 | US |