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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-17 remain
pending in the application.
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), 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).
Curry does not teach said substrate comprising a volume of between about 8.485 cubic micrometers and about 8.553 cubic micrometers at a distance of about 1 micrometer from said sharpened tip and a volume measured at 2 micrometers from said sharpened tip ranges between about 27.27 cubic micrometers to about 27.33 cubic micrometers.
However, Marleau teaches a substrate length of ½ centimeter or less (Marleau [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the length of Marleau to be 25 micrometers, and to modify the invention of Curry to have a substrate of this length as taught by Marleau 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 length of the substrate is a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized for performing shaving lined-designs (Marleau; [0009]). This combination of Marleau and Curry teaches a volume of between about 8.485 cubic micrometers and about 8.553 cubic micrometers at a distance of about 1 micrometer from said sharpened tip (Fig. 2, 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 a length of 25 micrometers as taught by Marleau yields a volume of 8.5 cubic micrometers).
The existing combination does not teach a volume measured at 2 micrometers from said sharpened tip ranges between 27.27 cubic micrometers to about 27.33 cubic micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the thickness at 2 micrometers from the tip of Curry to be such that with the established length of 25 micrometers taught by Marleau, the volume of the substrate of Curry is between 27.27 cubic micrometers and 27.33 cubic micrometers 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 thickness of the substrate as a function of the distance from the tip of the substrate is a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to provide improved shaving on comparative shave testing, but are sufficiently strong to give a reasonable useful life (Curry; Col. 1, lines 21-24).
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 depth included from the combination with Marleau (25 micrometers – See the rejection of claim 1 above) 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).
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 depth included from the combination with Marleau (25 micrometers – See the rejection of claim 1 above) 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).
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 tip radius 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 and Marleau 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 existing 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 further 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 existing 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 further 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).
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, Marleau, and Claus 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 further 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).
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 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 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that since the claimed volume range of the substrate of the claimed blade at a distance of two micrometers from the tip is not overlapping with the range disclosed by the combination of Marleau and Curry, Marleau and Curry do not teach this new claimed range. However, the rejection has been amended to use routine optimization of the substrate length of Marleau and the substrate thickness at the claimed distance of Curry (which are used in the rejection of claim 1 above to compute a substrate volume) such that the newly added limitation is taught by the combination of Marleau and Curry. It has been held that "[W]here 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 general conditions of defining the parameters of a blade which control the volume of the substrate of the blade is disclosed in Marleau and Curry. For such a rejection, it is not required that the range taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, the new rejection of claim 1 appropriately teaches the newly added limitations of claim 1.
Applicant additional argues that these volume ranges in claim 1 lead to an unexpected result. As explained in MPEP 716.02(b), the burden is on the Applicant to establish that results
of the claimed ranges are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon by the Applicant
should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both
statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Inter. 1992). Applicant provides evidence that the claimed invention exhibits a lower cutting
force than the prior art, however it is not clear that the cause of the lower cutting force is the
volume ranges claimed, or that these results are truly unexpected and unobvious. Additionally, Applicant bears the burden of establishing a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ
1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996). One of ordinary skill in the art would come to the conclusion that
lower cutting forces are the result of the thickness of the blade at the distance from the tip, and a
relationship between the thickness of the substrate at a certain distance from the tip and cutting
force is already clearly defined throughout the prior art. Moreover, to establish unexpected
results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside
and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d
955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The Applicant has not met any of these requirements.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights