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 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Francis Curry et al. (US 4720918 A - hereinafter Curry) in view of Brigitte Marleau (US
20190030738 A1 – hereinafter Marleau).
Regarding claim 1, Curry teaches a razor blade comprising: a substrate (Fig. 2, substrate
of razor blade shown in Fig. 2) in the form of a triangular shaped prism with a cutting edge being
defined by a sharpened tip (Fig. 2, sharpened tip being on the left), said substrate comprising a
volume of 8.5 cubic micrometers at a distance of about 1 micrometer from said sharpened tip
(Fig. 2, when using the formula for width shown, as well as the minimum and maximum values
for n of 0.65 to 0.75 and an a value of 0.68 (Col 5, lines 52-56), as well as the applicant assumed depth (in this case length of blade of 25 micrometers), and wherein the substrate thickness measured at 2 micrometers from said sharpened tip is less than 1.0 micrometers (Fig. 2, when using the formula for width shown, as well as the minimum value for n of 0.65 and an a value of equal to or less than 0.63 (Col 5, lines 52-56 – a can be less than 0.8), a substrate thickness of 1 micrometer or less is obtained). While Curry is silent to the length of the blade, Marleau teaches a blade length of ½ a centimeter or less (Marleau [0007]) which allows for a blade that is suitable for shaving lined designs into the hair of an individual (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the length of Curry to include a sufficiently small blade to shave detailed designs into the hair of a user as taught by Marleau which includes a length of 25 micrometers. It is further noted that the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range of the length (Specification for the claimed invention, page 16, lines 28-29) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the predictable result is the thickness of the razor blade of Curry having a length of 25 micrometers.)).
Therefore, using the formula for the area of a triangular prism to obtain the volume from
Curry’s area of the triangle and Marleau’s length of the blade, it would yield a range of between
8.485 cubic micrometers and 8.553 cubic micrometers. Since 8.5 cubic micrometers lies inside
the range of the Curry/Marleau combination, it teaches the claimed range) and a volume
measured at 2 micrometers from said sharpened tip ranges between about 30.6 cubic
micrometers to about 32.8 cubic micrometers (Fig. 2, when using the formula for width shown,
as well as the minimum and maximum values for n of 0.65 to 0.75 and an a value of 0.78 (Col 5,
lines 52-56), as well as the applicant assumed depth (Value L of 25 micrometers in the
specification of the claimed invention) and the formula for the area of a triangular prism to
obtain the volume. Since the volume range from Curry lies inside the claimed range, it is viewed
to teach the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 wherein said
substrate comprises a volume of between about 2.86 cubic micrometers and 3.1 cubic
micrometers at a distance of 0.50 micrometer from said sharpened tip (Fig. 2, when using the
formula for width shown, as well as the minimum and maximum values for n of 0.65 to 0.75 and
an a value of 0.77 (Col 5, lines 52-56), as well as the applicant assumed depth (Value L of 25
micrometers in the specification of the claimed invention) and the formula for the area of a
triangular prism to obtain the volume. Since the volume range from Curry closely encompasses
the claimed range, it is viewed to teach the claimed range).
Curry is silent to the length of the blade, however Marleau teaches a blade length of ½ a
centimeter or less (Marleau [0007]) which allows for a blade that is suitable for shaving lined
designs into the hair of an individual (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the length of Curry to include a sufficiently small
blade to shave detailed designs into the hair of a user as taught by Marleau which includes a
length of 25 micrometers. Furthermore, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the
claimed range (Specification for the claimed invention, page 16, lines 28-29) and since it has
been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by
the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ
90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this
case, the predictable result is the thickness of the razor blade of Curry having a length of 25
micrometers.)).
Regarding claim 4, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 wherein said
substrate comprises a volume of between about 16.4 cubic micrometers and 17 cubic
micrometers at a distance of 1.50 micrometer from said sharpened tip (Fig. 2, when using the formula for width shown, as well as the minimum and maximum values for n of 0.65 to 0.75 and
an a value of 0.67 (Col 5, lines 52-56), as well as the applicant assumed depth (Value L of 25
micrometers in the specification of the claimed invention) and the formula for the area of a
triangular prism to obtain the volume. Since the volume range from Curry closely encompasses
the claimed range, it is viewed to teach the claimed range).
Curry is silent to the length of the blade, however Marleau teaches a blade length of ½ a
centimeter or less (Marleau [0007]) which allows for a blade that is suitable for shaving lined
designs into the hair of an individual (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the length of Curry to include a sufficiently small
blade to shave detailed designs into the hair of a user as taught by Marleau which includes a
length of 25 micrometers. Furthermore, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the
claimed range (Specification for the claimed invention, page 16, lines 28-29) and since it has
been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by
the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ
90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this
case, the predictable result is the thickness of the razor blade of Curry having a length of 25
micrometers.)).
Regarding claim 5, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 wherein the
substrate has a tip radius of less than 50 nanometers (Col 3, lines 28-30 - Since the volume range
from Curry closely encompasses the claimed range, it is viewed to teach the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 wherein said
substrate is stainless steel (Col 4, lines 62-65).
Regarding claim 7, Curry does not teach the razor blade of claim 1 wherein said
thicknesses are measured using an Atomic Force Microscope. However, the patentability of a
product does not depend on its method of production. Since the volume of the claim is the same
as or obvious from a volume of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior
product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis
Curry et al. (US 4720918 A - hereinafter Curry) in view of Brigitte Marleau (US
20190030738 A1 – hereinafter Marleau) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Oliver Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Curry and Marleau fails to teach the razor blade
of claim 1 further comprising an interlayer joined to said substrate.
However, Claus teaches a razor blade with an interlayer (Fig. 2, Interlayer 34) joined to a
substrate (Fig. 2, Substrate 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor blade of Curry such that there is an interlayer joined to the substrate
as taught by Claus. Doing so is beneficial as an interlayer can improve the binding between the
substrate, particularly stainless steel, and other coating layers (Claus – Background, Para 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus already teaches that
the interlayer comprises niobium, chromium, platinum, titanium, or any combination or alloys
thereof (Claus – Fig. 2, Interlayer 34; Background, Para 1).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus fails to
teach the razor blade of claim 8, further comprising a hard coating layer joined to said interlayer
or to said substrate.
However, Claus teaches a hard coating layer (Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36) joined to
said interlayer (Fig. 2, Interlayer 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor blade of the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus such
that there is a hard coating layer joined to said interlayer or said substrate as taught by Claus.
Doing so is beneficial as the hard coating layer can improve strength, corrosion resistance, and
shaving ability (Claus – Background, Para 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus already teaches the
razor blade of claim 10 wherein said hard coating layer comprises carbon, boron, chromium, or
any combination thereof (Claus – Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36; Page 3, Para 4).
Regarding claim 12, the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus fails to
teach the razor blade of claim 10, further comprising an overcoat layer joined to said hard
coating layer.
However, Claus teaches an overcoat layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38) joined to said hard
coating layer (Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor blade of the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus such
that there is an overcoat layer joined to said hard coating layer as taught by Claus. Doing so is
beneficial as the overcoat layer reduces tip rounding of the cutting edge with repeated shaves
(Claus – Page 4, Para 1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus already teaches the
razor blade of claim 10, wherein the thickness of said hard coating layer is about 500 Angstroms
to about 1,500 Angstroms (Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36; Page 3, lines 26-29).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the hard coating layer of the combination of Curry , Marleau, and Claus to be
about 300 to about 800 Angstroms 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 razor blade of Curry would not operate differently with the
claimed thickness. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed,
indicating simply that the thickness is “preferably” within the claimed ranges (Specification of
the claimed invention, Page 22 lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus already teaches the
razor blade of claim 12, wherein said overcoat layer comprises chromium (Claus – Fig. 2,
Overcoat Layer 38; Summary, Para 3).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus fails to
teach the razor blade of claim 12 further comprising an outer layer joined to said overcoat layer.
However, Claus teaches an outer layer (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40) joined to said overcoat
layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the razor blade of the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus such that there is an outer layer joined to said overcoat layer as taught by Claus. Doing so is beneficial
as the outer layer reduces friction (Claus – Background, Para 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus already teaches the
razor blade of claim 15, wherein said outer layer comprises a polymer (Claus – Fig. 2, Outer
Layer 40; Background, Para 1 – PTFE is a polymer).
Regarding claim 17, the existing combination of Curry, Marleau, and Claus fails to
teach the razor blade of claim 16 wherein a wool felt cut force value is about 0.9 lbs.
However, Claus teaches that a wool felt cut force value for the razor blade is less than
1.05 lbs (Page 4, Para 4).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the razor blade of the combination of Curry, Marleau, and Clause to have a wool
felt cut force of about 0.9 lbs as taught by Claus as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The wool cut force is a result effective
variable as it needs to be optimized to provide a relatively sharp blade (Claus – Page 4, Para 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that when using the formula from Curry where w=ad^n, n being anywhere from 0.65 to 0.75 and a being 0.71-0.92, one does not receive a range of values which includes any value below 1 micrometer thickness at a distance of 2 micrometers from the blade tip for the substrate, and that further Curry teaches against a thickness of below 1.17 micrometers at 2 micrometers from the blade tip for reasons of avoiding fracture and damage. However, this value range for a is with the use of a stainless steel blade, and this minimum thickness recommendation is also for a stainless steel blade, which is not specified as a limitation in claim 1. Curry in fact teaches towards the use of a much thinner blade compared to these values for blades made of materials outside of stainless steel such as sapphire, titanium carbide, or diamond (Col. 4, lines 61-65). Curry additionally discloses that the variable a simply need be “not greater than 0.8” (abstract), allowing for the use of the aforementioned formula to obtain thickness below 1 micrometer at a distance of 2 micrometers.
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