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
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 15 been renumbered 16.
Claim 15 on Page 2 of 5 in the claims filed October 14, 2022, August 21, 2025, and January 28, 2026, which recites “wherein the first face comprises a quaternary bevel extending form the cutting edge to the first surface” has not been properly numbered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 (line 14) and claim 16 (line 19), the phrase “the primary bevel having a length d1 being a dimension projected onto the first surface” is indefinite. It is unclear how a length (which has a dimension) is projected onto the first surface. What structure, if is, is imparted by this length being projected on the first surface? Is the projected length d1 different from the length of primary bevel (5) between cutting edge (4) and secondary bevel (6) extending along the second surface?
Regarding claim 1 (line 17) and claim 16 (line 2), the phrase “a length d2 being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line from 1 to 150 µm” is indefinite. It is unclear how a length (which has a dimension) is projected onto the first surface. What structure, if is, is imparted by this length being projected on the first surface? Is the projected length d2 different from the length extending from the cutting edge (4) to the second intersecting line along the second surface?
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a length d2 being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line from 1 to 150 µm”, and the claim also recites “a length d2 being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line from 5 to 100 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Therefore, it is unclear if the length of d2 falls within the range of 1 to 150 µm or 5 to 100 µm.
Note, if it is Applicant’s intent to narrow the range of 1 to 150 µm to 5 to 100 µm, the latter limitation can be provided in a dependent claim to overcome the 112, second paragraph rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US Patent No. 3,606,682 to Camp et al. in view of US Patent No. 2,244,053 to Comstock et al.
In re claim 1, Camp teaches cutting blade having a first face (see Annotated Figure 1, below), a second face (see Annotated Figure 1, below) opposed to the first face and different from the first face as well as a cutting edge (16) at the intersection of the first face and the second face, wherein:
the first face comprises a first surface (24), wherein the first surface (24) is planar and extends from the intersection of the first face and the second face;
the second face comprises a primary bevel (14’), a secondary bevel (18’) and a tertiary bevel (22’) with
the primary bevel (14’) extending from the cutting edge (16’) to the secondary bevel (18’); the secondary bevel (18’) extending from the primary bevel (14’) to the tertiary bevel (22’);
a first intersecting line (as shown in at least Figure 2, an interesting line is disposed between the primary and secondary bevels) connecting the primary bevel and the secondary bevel;
a second intersecting line (as shown in at least Figure27, an interesting line is disposed between the secondary and tertiary bevels) connecting the secondary bevel and the tertiary bevel;
a first wedge angle Θ1 (α’) between the second surface (24) and the primary bevel (16’);
a second wedge angle Θ2 between the second surface (24) and the secondary bevel (18’);
a third wedge angle Θ3 between the second surface (24) and the tertiary bevel (22’);
the primary bevel having a length d1 (b’) being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge (26) to the first intersecting line;
a length d2 (c’) being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line from 1 to 150 µm (Col. 2, lines 60-65, the distance c’ is about .005 inches, which is about 127 µm); and
wherein the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line has a length d1.
PNG
media_image1.png
283
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 3, wherein the primary bevel (14’) has a length d1 being the dimension projected onto the first surface.
In re claim 5, wherein the cutting blade comprises of a blade body consisting of a first material (Col. 3, lines 47-49).
In re claim 6, wherein the first material comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: metals, or titanium, nickel, chromium, niobium, tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, vanadium, platinum, germanium, iron, and alloys thereof, or steel (Col. 3, lines 47-49).
In re claim 14, wherein the first face (14’) comprises a first surface (as shown in at least Figure 1) which is planar.
In re claim 16, Camp teaches a hair removal device (Fig. 1) comprising a cutting blade having a first face (see Annotated Figure 1, above), a second face (see Annotated Figure 1, above) opposed to the first face and different from the first face as well as a cutting edge (16’) at the intersection of the first face and the second face, wherein:
the first face (see Annotated Figure 1, above) comprises a first surface (24), wherein the first surface is planar and extends from the intersection of the first face and the second face;
the second face (see Annotated Figure 1, above) comprises a primary bevel (14’), a secondary bevel (18’) and a tertiary bevel (22’) with
the primary bevel (14’) extending from the cutting edge (26) to the secondary bevel (18’);
the secondary bevel (18’) extending from the primary bevel (14’) to the tertiary bevel (22’);
a first intersecting line (as shown in at least Figure 1, an interesting line is disposed between the primary and secondary bevels) connecting the primary bevel and the secondary bevel;
a second intersecting line (as shown in at least Figure 1, an interesting line is disposed between the secondary and tertiary bevels) connecting the secondary bevel and the tertiary bevel;
a first wedge angle Θ1 (α’) between the second surface (24) and the primary bevel (14’);
a second wedge angle Θ2 between the second surface (24) and the secondary bevel (18’);
a third wedge angle Θ3 between the second surface (24) and the tertiary bevel;
the primary bevel having a length d1 being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the first intersecting line;
a length d2 being the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Camp teaches a wedge angle between the second surface (24) and the primary bevel, the secondary bevel, and the tertiary bevel, but does not teach the wedge angle formed between the first surface and the bevel and wherein the first wedge angle Θ1 ranges from 5° to 75°.
Comstock teaches in the art of cutting blades, a blade (1) having a plurality of bevels (6,7,10,11) between the primary and the second faces, which satisfies the relationship of Θ1 > Θ2 and Θ2 < Θ3. In this instance Θ1=15°-20°; Θ2= 8° to 12° and Θ3=3° to 9°, satisfying the equation Θ1 (15°) > Θ2 (8°) and Θ2 (8°) < Θ3 (9°). Comstock also teaches the first wedge angle is 15° to 20°, which falls within the range of 10° to 75°.
Note, Comstock provides a teaching (and the concept of) of bevel angles with respect to linear bisecting axis 8-9. Further, based on the angular range of each angle, the slope of each bevel is oriented to satisfy the claimed equation of Θ1 (15°) > Θ2 (8°) and Θ2 (8°) < Θ3 (9°).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the primary, secondary, tertiary bevel surface, the first wedge angle of Camp with respect to the first surface to establish the relationship of Θ1 > Θ2 and Θ2 < Θ3 as taught by Comstock in order to provide a blade with a fine edge and improved strength (Pg. 2, lines 4-14, Pg. 4, lines 6-10).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Camp teaches a blade with the primary bevel having a length d1 being a dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to first interesting line that does not exceed .002 inches (0 to .002 inches is equivalent to 50.8 µm or less; 0.1 to 7 µm, which includes the range of 0.5 to 5 µm, lies within the range of 50.8 µm or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dimension the primary bevel of Camp having a length of 50.80 µm in order to reduce shaving friction by presenting minimal surface area to the skin and whiskers, which reduces skin irritation (Col. 2, lines 32-36). The range of Camp encompasses more values than the claimed range; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try various values within the disclosed range of Camp. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The modification would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to dimension the blade of Camp to have a specific length to reduce irritation during shaving, which is a design need based in the art of razor blades. Based on the teachings provided by Camp, the Examiner concluded the length of the primary bevel as modified Camp maintains the desired length to reduce friction during shaving and irritation.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Camp provided a teaching of a specific bevel length of 50.80 µm or less. Based on the teachings of Camp, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the primary bevel length, proportionate to the blade body, to perform the intended cutting operation. The values of 50.80 µm or less as taught by Camp, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various values above, below, 50.80 µm or less the before arriving at the primary bevel length which allows the integrity of the blade to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Camp, that the blade of could have a length, since the primary bevel length of 50.80 µm or less would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the blade with a primary bevel length of 50.80 µm or less would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation while reducing surface friction.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Camp teaches a primary bevel length of 50.80 µm or less being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various primary bevel lengths above and below the values 50.80 µm or less as taught by Camp to find the length that did not jeopardize the integrity of the blade while still providing a blade that reduces surface friction and skin irritation.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Camp teaches the dimension projected onto the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line has a length d2, having a length a length d2 of about 0.005 inches (about 127µm), which falls just outside the claimed ranges of 5 to 100 µm (Claim 1) or 1 to 100 µm (Claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the length d2 to extend about 127 µm as taught by Camp so the blade will pass entirely through the beard hair before the hair engages the tapered surface of the blade such that there is virtually no razor surface drag or friction created on the hair in the relief area (Pg. 2, lines 47-62). The values of about 127 µm is just outside of the claim range; therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try various values of about 127 µm as taught by Camp. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The modification to the blade of Camp would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to dimension the blade of Camp to have a specific length such that there is virtually no razor surface drag or friction created on the hair in the relief area during shaving, which is a design need based in the art of razor blades. Based on the teachings provided by Camp, the Examiner concluded the length of the primary bevel as modified Camp maintains the desired length to reduce drag and friction during shaving.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Camp provided a teaching of a specific bevel length of about 127 µm. Based on the teachings of Camp, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the length d2, proportionate to the blade body, to perform the intended cutting operation. The values of about 127 µm as taught by Camp, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various values above, below, 127 µm or less the before arriving at the length d2 which allows the integrity of the blade to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Camp, that the blade could have a length as set forth by Camp, since the length d2 of about 127 µm would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the blade with a length of about 127 µm would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation while reducing drag and surface friction during shaving.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Camp teaches a length d2 of about 127 µm or less being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various length d2 above and below the values of about 127 µm as taught by Camp to find the length that did not jeopardize the integrity of the blade while still providing a blade that reduces drag and surface friction.
Further, Applicant would have been prompted to try various values above and below the range of 127 µm since the claimed range does not impart any criticality. See MPEP 2144.05
In re claim 2, modified Camp teaches wherein the second wedge angle Θ2 ranges from -5° to 40° (Figure 1, Comstock, Θ2 is 8° which falls within the claimed range).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camp et al. in view of Comstock, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20150360376 to Simms et al.
In re claim 10, modified Camp teaches a blade having a first material, but does not teach wherein the first material is coated at least in regions with a low-friction material, wherein said low-friction material is selected from the group consisting of fluoropolymers, parylene, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene, polypropylene, polymethyl methacrylate, graphite, diamond-like carbon (DLC) and combinations thereof.
Simms teaches a cutting blade having a first material with a of polytetrafluoroethylene, which is a low-friction material selected from the fluoropolymers group (Para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat the first material of modified Camp with polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Simms to which is advantageous for maintaining a smooth shave and improved shaving experience.
Regarding claim 13, modified Camp teaches a blade having a tip, but does not teach the blade having a tip radius of less than 200 nm.
Simms teaches a cutting blade with an ultimate tip having a radius of about 50 nm to about 150 nm, which falls within the claims range of less than 200 nm (Para 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tip of modified Camp with a radius to maintain a very sharp blade (Para 0035), while preventing chipping or breaking of the edge and user injury.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camp et al. in view of Comstock, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 3,842,499 to Dorion Jr. et al.
In re claim 15, modified Camp teaches wherein the first face (see Annotated Figure 1, Pg. 6, above), but does not teach the first face comprises a quaternary bevel extending form the cutting edge to the first surface.
Dorian teaches a blade comprises a quaternary bevel (16a) extending form the cutting edge (26) to the first surface (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Camp with a quaternary bevel as taught by Dorian which is advantageous for providing a highly durable and sharp edge for controlled cutting tasks.
Note, claims 7-9, 11, and 12 depend from claim 5 and have not been rejected under prior art. The lack of a prior art rejection is not an admission of allowable subject matter. Claim 5 sets forth a claim limitation comprising/consisting of three alternative limitations. The limitation examined is directed to “wherein the cutting blade comprises of a blade body consisting of a first material.” Due to the examined limitation, the claims depending from claim 5 do not require examination, since the subject matter of claims 7-9, 11, and 12 are directed to the second material. If an amendment is made to claim 5, claims 7-9, 11, and 12 may be subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection in the Office Action mailed October 28, 2025 to the number of the claims not being in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 has been maintained. The amendments filed January 28, 2026 do not reflect claim 15, being properly renumbered as claim 16.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724