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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0368929 A1), hereafter known as Park, in view of Ogami (EP 1757388 A1) and Duff, Jr. et al. (US 2013/0031794 A1), hereafter known as Duff.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a razor blade apparatus (Park, Fig. 1, 10) comprising: a sharpened substrate (Park, Fig. 1, 110) having at least one material comprising a compound of chromium and boron, (CrBn) disposed thereon (Park, Fig. 1, 120), wherein an atomic percentage of boron ranges from greater than zero atomic percent to less than 100 atomic percent of said compound, as the compound of Park includes Chromium Boride some atomic percent of the compound greater than zero would be Boron but less than 100 atomic percent as some portion would be made up of Chromium,
wherein said at least one CrBn material is directly disposed on the sharpened substrate (Park, Fig. 1, 120, P. 0035) forming a layer on the said sharpened substrate (Park, Fig. 1, 120),
wherein one or more interlayers are disposed between said at least one CrBn layer and the sharpened substrate (Park, P. 0065), one or more overcoat layers are disposed on top of said at least one CrBn layer (Park, Fig. 1, 130), or both,
wherein the one or more interlayers comprises of a CrBn material (Park, Fig. 1, 122) and an additive or a second component (Park, Fig. 1, 124, P. 0049-0050)
Park does not teach wherein the CrBn layer is an overcoat layer, wherein said one or more overcoat layers comprises an increasing concentration of said second component in a direction towards an outer surface, and wherein the CrBn material itself decreases in concentration in the direction from the CrBn layer in a direction toward the outer surface.
Ogami teaches an overcoat layer comprised of a CrBn material (Ogami, P. 0010) for a cutting tool (Ogami, P. 0009) with a cutting edge (Ogami, P. 0018). Overcoats which include CrBn provide better effective protection for the substrate and interlayers (Ogami, P. 0010). This protection helps the substrate retain its form over time and prevents wear of the interlayers. Although the invention of Ogami is not drawn to a razor blade it is related art in that it is drawn to the idea of providing different material layers through deposition onto a substrate to provide extra protection for the interlayers and substrate from corrosion or possible separation of the layers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the CrBn interlayer taught by Park such that the layer was instead an overcoat layer as taught by Ogami as overcoat layers comprising a CrBn material are known in the art as a way to provide effective protection for the substrate and interlayers.
Duff teaches a razor blade (Duff, Fig. 1 and 11, 14) wherein an overcoat layer (Duff, Fig. 4-9, 49, 59, 69, 79, 85, and 95) comprising a first component and a second component (Duff, P. 0008). Wherein said overcoat layer comprising a gradient wherein the second component has an increasing concentration and the first component has a decreasing concentration in a direction towards and outer surface of the substrate (Duff, P. 0009 and 0044) or overcoat layer comprising a gradient wherein the second component has a decreasing concentration and the first component has an increasing concentration in a direction towards and outer surface of the substrate (Duff, P. 0043). Such overcoat layers help lubrication of the skin during shaving (Duff, P. 0036). While the overcoat layer taught by Duff does not consist of the CrBn material as claimed, Duff shows that it is known in the art to have a gradient for a two component layer and that when the concentration of one component increases or decreases the concentration of the second component does the opposite.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the razor blade taught by Park to include a gradient for an overcoat layer with an increasing concentration of said second component and decreasing concentration of the first component wherein the first component is the CrBn material as taught by Duff to help lubrication of the skin during shaving.
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 1 wherein at least one polymeric material is disposed on top of the at least one CrBn layer, or on top of said one or more overcoat layers, or any combination thereof (Park, P. 0007).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 6 wherein said at least one polymeric material comprises PTFE (Park, P. 0004).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 8, wherein said second component is one or more of a polymeric material, ceramic, metal, silicon, boron, carbon, or any combination thereof (Park, P. 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one CrBn material is disposed on the sharpened substrate via physical vapor deposition or chemical vapor deposition (Park, P. 0032).
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 1 wherein the sharpened substrate (Park, Fig. 1, 110) is comprised of stainless steel, metal, ceramic, composite, diamond, silicon, polymeric material, glass, or any combination thereof (Park, P. 0042).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 1, featuring a sharpened substrate with a blade edge (Park, P. 0007).
Park in view of Ogami and Duff as modified by claim 1 does not teach wherein said blade edge is linear, non-linear, or any combination thereof.
Duff further teaches a razor blade (Duff, Fig. 1, 14, P. 0029) with a blade edge (Duff, Fig. 1, 14a) that may be linear, non-linear, or any combination thereof (Duff, P. 0012).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shape of the blade edge of the sharpened substrate taught by Park in view of Ogami and Duff to be linear, non-linear, or any combination thereof as further taught by Duff or to change the shape of the blade edge to whatever form or shape was desired or expedient as doing so provides different shaped blades for different types of razors (Duff, P. 0049). 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. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0368929 A1) in view of Ogami (EP 1757388 A1) and Duff (US 2013/0031794 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nisby et al. (US 11,654,588 B2), hereafter known as Nisby.
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 12, where said substrate (Park, Fig. 1, 110) is a stainless steel (Park, P. 0042).
Park in view of Ogami and Duff does not teach a substrate of martensitic stainless steel having a carbide density of 90 carbides per 100 square micrometers to 1000 carbides per 100 square micrometers
Nisby teaches a razor blade (Nisby, Fig. 1-2, 10) wherein said substrate (Nisby, Fig. 1-2, 11) is martensitic stainless steel (Nisby, Col. 4, lines 59-61) having a carbide density of about 90 carbides per 100 square micrometers to about 1000 carbides per 100 square micrometers (Nisby, Col. 4 line 65 – Col. 5 line 5). The substrate of Nisby has a density of at least 400 or more carbides per 100 square micrometers which is between the claimed range. Having such a fine carbide substrate provides a harder and more brittle after-hardening substrate while also enabling a thinner, stronger edge to be made (Nisby, Col. 4, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the stainless steel substrate taught by Park in view of Ogami and Duff to be a martensitic stainless steel having a carbide density of at least 400 carbides or more per 100 square micrometers as taught by Nisby as doing so provides a harder but more brittle after-hardening substrate that can be made with a thinner, stronger edge.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0368929 A1) in view of Ogami (EP 1757388 A1) and Duff (US 2013/0031794 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (WO 2017/138792 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Ogami and Duff teaches the razor blade apparatus of claim 1, wherein a layer is made of a CrBn material (Park, Fig. 1, 120).
Park in view of Ogami and Duff does not teach wherein said at least one CrBn layer has a hardness greater than or equal to 15 GPa.
Kang teaches a blade featuring a CrBn material (Kang, P. 0050, lines 1-4) with a hardness of about 24 GPa (Kang, P. 0050, lines 1-4). While Kang teaches layers for the blade of a hand knife it is related to the instant invention in that it shares a similar construction (a blade with a blade edge made from a substrate featuring multiple layers of materials formed on the substrate. Additionally, Kang also teaches that the blade may be a razor blade (Kang, P. 0019).
However, because Kang teaches that the hardness of a CrBn material is 24 GPa it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a specific range of hardness because discovering a range of hardness the would function best with the instant invention would have been a mere design consideration based on the other materials used for the substrate, interlayers and overcoat. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement. 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.
Further, the Applicant has not established that the recited range provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Kang’s arrangement and the Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either Kang’s or Applicant’s CrBn material since both arrangements perform the same function.
Response to Amendment
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record is improper as the rejection relies on improper hindsight reasoning. The Examiner disagrees, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive. However, as the applicant has amended the claim the Examiner has updated the rejection of claim 1.
The applicant asserts that the amendment to claim 9 overcomes the obviousness type rejection of record. The Examiner agrees, however as the applicant has amended the claim the rejection has been updated to show that Park teaches a second component that is part of the claimed Markush group. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the obviousness type rejection of record for claim 13 is improper due the amendments to claim 1. The Examiner disagrees, as the rejection of claim 1 has been updated to deal with the amendments to claim 1 the rejection of claim 13 still applies. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724