DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of enablement have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made for a lack of written description. Claim 1 lacks written description because here is no connection made indicating how the blade characteristics are used to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade. With regard to the remarks on pgs. 1-2, the amended portion of the claim fails to provide adequate written description because although the limitation describes the nature of the adjustment to the manufacturing process, the limitation fails to explicitly explain via an algorithm, steps, etc. how the adjustment is based on the blade characteristics
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of enablement have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made for a lack of written description. The specification does not provide information as to how the two-dimensional representation of the tip portion of the razor blade at the first longitudinal position is based on an average of the first positional data and the second positional data. There must be an algorithm, steps, etc. to explain how the two-dimensional representation is based on an average. The term “based on” represents a ‘black box’ that does not reveal, in this case, how the two-dimensional representation is related to the average. It just indicates that there is some undisclosed relationship between the two entities.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of enablement have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made for a lack of written description. Although the specification mentions using the three-dimensional representation to generate the Finite Element Analytical model, there is no disclosure as to how the three-dimensional representation is used to do so. An algorithm, steps, etc. must be provided to describe this process in order to meet the written description requirement.
Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks on pg. 3 state that “Kang does not teach or suggest modifying the grinder characteristics based on analyzed blade characteristics obtained from AFM measurements to improve a design of the razor blade as part of an optimization method for a manufacturing process that includes changing a pitch of a grinding wheel, creating a new grinding wheel, or changing a configuration of a grinding machine.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Chen is used to teach the analyzed blade characteristics obtained from AFM measurements. Oh modifies Chen to teach that these blade characteristics can be used to adjust a manufacturing process to improve a design of a razor blade, however Oh does not go into detail about the manufacturing process or method of adjusting it. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Kang to cure this deficiency, as Kang modifies the combination by providing the manufacturing process (not disclosed by Oh) and a method of its optimization, particularly, changing grinder characteristics. Consequently, the references work in conjunction to obviate the claimed invention.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation “using the blade characteristics to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade, wherein adjusting the manufacturing process comprises at least one of: changing a pitch of a grinding wheel, creating a new grinding wheel, changing a configuration of a grinding machine, or combinations thereof”. MPEP 2161.01 I. states, “To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” There is no connection made indicating how the blade characteristics are used to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade. The specification discusses the blade characteristics (see pg. 9, paragraph beginning “At step 310…”, which identifies the blade characteristics as radius of ultimate tip, convexity of the blade bevel in the ultimate tip region, departure angle, tip-to-bevel transition, tip width, sputtering conditions and deposition materials, sputtered tip shapes, cross-sectional area, tip volume) and the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade (see pg. 10, paragraph beginning “At step 315…”, which teaches that the manufacturing process could be a sharpening process or a coating process and the adjustment of the sharpening process includes changing a pitch of a grinding wheel, creating a new grinding wheel through varied formulations, or changing one or more configurations of a grinding machine and the adjustment of the coating process includes changing a configuration of the coating machine to accommodate different types of coatings and to deposit optimal coating); however, there is no disclosure linking blade characteristics to their use in adjusting the manufacturing process. The specification states the blade characteristics are used to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of razor blade, however this merely recites the claim language without explaining how this is accomplished. The disclosure does not make any explicit connection between the blade characteristics and how they are used to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade. As a result, the claim lacks the written description necessary to indicate possession of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 2-13 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the step of analyzing comprises generating a two-dimensional representation of the tip portion of the razor blade at the first longitudinal position based on an average of the first positional data and the second positional data” is not fully enabled. MPEP 2161.01 I. states, “To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” The specification does not provide information as to how the two-dimensional representation of the tip portion of the razor blade at the first longitudinal position is based on an average of the first positional data and the second positional data. The specification teaches on page 7 that “Generally, spatial information can be considered two-dimensional or three- dimensional topography, which can be characterized as a collection of points defined by their coordinate locations, relative to each other or to a datum. One example of spatial information that may be obtained is shown in Fig. 5, which depicts an example two-dimensional representation, or thickness profile, of tip portion35 of razor blade25. Data produced by AFM200 for both sides of razor blade25 may be combined to produce the thickness profile.” This disclosure, although pointing to the combination of the first and second positional data, does not disclose the combination being based on an average, or how the combination is conducted. Additionally, on page 2 the specification teaches “Analyzing can include generating a two-dimensional representation of the tip portion of the razor blade at the first longitudinal position based on an average of the first positional data and the second positional data.” This disclosure merely recites the claim language without disclosing in what way the two-dimensional representation is based on an average of the first positional data and the second positional data. As a result, the claim lacks the written description necessary to indicate possession of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the step of analyzing comprises generating a Finite Element Analytical model of the tip portion of the razor blade and modeling an interaction of the Finite Element Analytical model against skin,” is not enabled by the disclosure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make or use the invention. MPEP 2161.01 I. states, “To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” The specification teaches on page 9, “The three-dimensional representation can be used to generate a Finite Element Analytical model of tip portion35 of razor blade25, which can be used to model an interaction of the Finite Element Analytical model against skin (see, e.g., Fig. 9, showing an example Finite Element Analytical model showing a graphical representation of a tip portion935 of a razor blade interacting against a graphical representation of the skin965 of a user).” The specification merely recites the claim language that teaches generating a Finite Element Analytical model and using said model to model an interaction with skin. Although the specification mentions using the three-dimensional representation to generate the Finite Element Analytical model, there is no disclosure as to how the three-dimensional representation is used to do so. Further, Fig. 9 merely provides an example of the resulting Finite Element Analytical model without providing any detail as to how it was generated. As a result, the claim lacks the written description necessary to indicate possession of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et. al. (Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) Analysis of an Object Larger and Sharper than the AFM Tip. Microscopy and Microanalysis, Volume 25, Issue 5, 1 October 2019, Pages 1106-1111; from IDS filed 09/29/2023), hereinafter Chen, as evidence by ScanAsyst (“ScanAsyst – Air| Silicon Nitride Probes”, retrieved from the Internet, and from IDS filed 09/29/2023), in view of Oh, et. al. (KR 101036192 B2, from IDS filed 09/29/2023; see translated document for paragraph numbers), hereinafter Oh and Kang (KR 102119890 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches measuring, using an atomic force microscope (atomic force microscope (AFM), Introduction) including a probe having a high aspect ratio of a length to a half side angle (Fig. 3a) and a probe tip with a radius less than a radius of an ultimate tip of the tip portion of the razor blade (in Fig. 4, radius of probe tip appears smaller than radius of ultimate tip of tip portion of razor blade; Pg. 2, section “Methods, Experimental” teaches that ScanAsyst – Air AFM probes consisting of a Si tip were used for imaging. ScanAsyst makes Si probe tips with tip radius between 2 and 12 nm. Section “Results and Discussion”, second to last paragraph teaches effective curvature of the blade edge shown in Figure 6a is 27 ± 9nm.), the spatial information of the tip portion of the razor blade by traversing the probe across the tip portion of the razor blade (Fig. 4 shows 3D plot of AFM topographic image of the blade collected by traversing the probe across the tip portion; see also pg. 3 left column, second full paragraph); and
analyzing, by one or more processors, the spatial information as measured by the atomic force microscope, to determine one or more blade characteristics (pg. 4, Fig. 6, pg. 4, right column, first and second full paragraphs teach determining the effective curvature/sharpness of the cutting edge);
Chen, et. al. does not teach a method of optimizing a manufacturing process using spatial information for a tip portion of a razor blade, comprising the steps of: using the blade characteristics to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade, wherein adjusting the manufacturing process comprises at least one of: changing a pitch of a grinding wheel, creating a new grinding wheel, or changing a configuration of a grinding machine, or a combination thereof.
Oh teaches a method of optimizing a manufacturing process using spatial information for a tip portion of a razor blade ([0005] teaches overall shaped can be measured accurately so that a high-quality razor blade with higher precision can be manufactured), comprising the steps of: using the blade characteristics to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade ([0005] teaches that the shape of the blade determined by the analysis will be used to inform manufacturing with higher precision. [0006] teaches that “the data on surface roughness, including the blade angle of the test object (100), can be collected and stored in a database, which can be used as important data during product development”).
Oh modifies Chen by suggesting using the spatial information to optimize the manufacturing process, by using the blade characteristics to adjust the manufacturing process to improve a design of the razor blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to incorporate the teachings of Oh because doing so allows “a high-quality razor blade with higher precision can be manufactured,” (Oh, [0005]).
Although Oh teaches optimizing a manufacturing process, Oh does not teach what the manufacturing process is or how the manufacturing process is optimized/adjusted. Kang solves this deficiency. Kang teaches wherein adjusting the manufacturing process comprises changing a configuration of a grinding machine (Kang teaches adjusting the vertical height, forward/backward position, and tilting angle of a grinding stone according to the grinding path information of the blade, [0012], [0032], [0036]).
Kang modifies the combination by suggesting that the adjustment to the manufacturing process comprises changing a configuration (position and angle) of a grinding/polishing stone.
Since both inventions are directed to razor blade manufacture, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang because Kang cures the deficiency of Oh by providing a manufacturing process and method of optimizing the manufacturing process of the blade, and further, because the adjusting the grinding stone of Kang allows for sharpening the blade according to the curved shape of the blade, as calculated, (Kang, [0011], [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen and ScanAsyst teach wherein the radius of the probe tip is less than or equal to 1/3 the radius of the ultimate tip of the razor blade (Pg. 2, section “Methods, Experimental” teaches ScanAsyst – Air AFM probes consisting of a Si tip were used for imaging. ScanAsyst makes Si probe tips with tip radius between 2 and 12 nm. Section “Results and Discussion”, second to last paragraph teaches effective curvature of the blade edge shown in Figure 6a is 27 ± 9nm. Using these values, 2nm/36nm – 12nm/18nm substantially overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches wherein the probe is traversed across the tip portion of the razor blade in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the ultimate tip of the razor blade (Fig. 4a, pg. 3, left column second full paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches wherein the step of measuring comprises traversing the probe from the ultimate tip to 4 micrometers on each side of the ultimate tip (Fig. 4 shows traversing the probe from the ultimate tip to 3 micrometers on each side. 3 micrometers is close to 4 micrometers. MPEP 2144.05 teaches that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.)
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches comprising the step of positioning the probe at a first longitudinal position along the razor blade; wherein the step of measuring includes measuring first positional data with the probe at the first longitudinal position and approaching the razor blade from a first direction and measuring second positional data with the probe at the first longitudinal position and approaching the razor blade from a second direction, opposite the first direction (Fig. 4a, see arrow showing movement, pg. 3, left column second full paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches wherein the step of analyzing comprises generating a two-dimensional representation of the tip portion of the razor blade at the first longitudinal position based on an average of the first positional data and the second positional data (Fig. 5) shows 2D simulation of tip generated in order to perform analysis).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches comprising the step of positioning the probe at multiple longitudinal positions along the razor blade; wherein the step of measuring includes measuring first positional data with the probe at each longitudinal position approaching the razor blade from a first direction and measuring second positional data with the probe at each longitudinal position approaching the razor blade from a second direction, opposite the first direction (arrows in Fig. 4 show scanning the probe at a longitudinal position approaching the razor blade from a first and second direction opposite to each other. Fig. 6(a) shows that this is done at multiple longitudinal positions (see cross sections i-v)).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches wherein each longitudinal position is at least 30 nanometers from adjacent longitudinal positions (Fig. 6 shows that longitudinal positions i-v are each 0.1 micrometers = 100 nanometers apart).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches wherein the step of analyzing comprises generating a three-dimensional representation of the tip portion of the razor blade based on the first positional data and the second positional data measured at the multiple longitudinal positions (Fig. 6, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches wherein the step of analyzing comprises determining at least one of: a radius of the ultimate tip, a departure angle, a tip-to-bevel transition, a tip width, a cross-sectional area, or a tip volume (Fig. 6 and pg. 4 right column second full paragraph teaches finding the effective curvature (radius) of the ultimate tip).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches wherein the radius of the probe tip ranges up to 7 nanometers (Pg. 2, section “Methods, Experimental” teaches ScanAsyst – Air AFM probes consisting of a Si tip were used for imaging. ScanAsyst makes Si probe tips with tip radius between 2 and 12 nm.).
Regarding claim 15, Chen and ScanAsyst in view of Oh does not explicitly teach wherein the manufacturing process is a sharpening process, a coating process, an electrochemical process, or any combination thereof.
Kang teaches wherein the manufacturing process is a sharpening process ([0001], [0021]).
Kang modifies the combination by suggesting that the manufacturing process is a sharpening process.
Since both inventions are directed to razor blade manufacture, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang because the grinding stone of Kang allows for sharpening the blade as needed, (Kang, [0012]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) Analysis of an Object Larger and Sharper than the AFM Tip. Microscopy and Microanalysis, Volume 25, Issue 5, 1 October 2019, Pages 1106-1111) as evidence by ScanAsyst (“ScanAsyst – Air| Silicon Nitride Probes”, retrieved from the Internet), and Oh (KR 101036192 B2), further in view of Skrobis, et. al. (US 20210031390 A1), hereinafter Skrobis.
Regarding claim 10, Chen and ScanAsyst in view of Oh does not teach wherein the step of analyzing comprises generating a Finite Element Analytical model of the tip portion of the razor blade and modeling an interaction of the Finite Element Analytical model against skin.
Skrobis teaches wherein the step of analyzing comprises generating a Finite Element Analytical model of the tip portion of the razor blade and modeling an interaction of the Finite Element Analytical model against skin ([0096]-[0101]).
Skrobis modifies the combination by suggesting using a finite element model of the razor blade to model its interaction against skin.
Since both inventions are directed to razor blade analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Skrobis because simulation modeling allows for the prediction of the mechanical behavior of skin during various dynamic loading situations, such as those found during a shaving stroke, (Skrobis, [0096]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) Analysis of an Object Larger and Sharper than the AFM Tip. Microscopy and Microanalysis, Volume 25, Issue 5, 1 October 2019, Pages 1106-1111) as evidenced by ScanAsyst (“ScanAsyst – Air| Silicon Nitride Probes”, retrieved from the Internet), in view of Oh (KR 101036192 B2), further in view of Kaito, et. al. (US 20030122072 A1), hereinafter Kaito.
Regarding claim 13, Chen and ScanAsyst in view of Oh do not explicitly teach wherein the aspect ratio is at least 1 micron per degree.
Kaito teaches wherein the aspect ratio is at least 1 micron per degree (Fig. 10, first and second rows, [0045]).
Kaito modifies the combination by suggesting that the high aspect ratio of the probe is at least 1 micron in length per degree of the side angle.
Since both inventions are directed to atomic force microscopy probe tips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kaito because a smaller taper per length decreases processing time, as seen in Fig. 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okuno, et. al. (JP 2008134245 A)
Teaches using an instrument to measure a tip shape of a cutting edge
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881