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 February 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 18-20 have been
cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-17 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the
objections to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 13th, 2026.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Curry (US 4720918 A) in view of The Gillette Company (WO 2010008980 A1 –
hereinafter referred to as Gillette).
Regarding claim 1, Curry teaches a razor blade comprising a substrate with a cutting
edge being defined by an ultimate tip (Fig. 2, razor blade depicted in Fig. 2; it is well known in
the art that a razor blade comprises a substrate with a cutting edge defined by an ultimate tip),
said substrate comprising a thickness of between 0.135 micrometers to 0.138 micrometers at a
distance of 0.1 micrometers from the ultimate tip ([Col. 6, Lines 52-63; using the equation
provided on line 55 relating thickness and distance from the ultimate tip as well as the defined
range of values of variables a (.71-.92) and n (.65-.75); we calculate a range of values of 0.126
micrometers to 0.206 micrometers for the thickness of the blade, which encompasses the claimed
range of thickness values at the claimed distance from the tip] (see chart below)), wherein said thicknesses form a non-linear relationship relative to each other within the region from the ultimate tip to 2 micrometers back from the ultimate tip (the thicknesses formed within the first two micrometers back from the ultimate tip are defined by the equation provided on line 55 in Col. 6, the equation defining a non-linear profile for the razor blade).
PNG
media_image1.png
73
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Curry fails to teach a thickness of between 0.586 micrometers and 0.596 micrometers at a
distance of 1.1 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.625 micrometers to
0.634 micrometers from the ultimate tip at a distance of 1.2 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a
thickness of between 0.664 micrometers and 0.673 micrometers at a distance of 1.3 micrometers
from said ultimate tip, and a thickness of between 0.705 micrometers and 0.712 micrometers at a
distance of 1.4 micrometers from the ultimate tip.
However, Gillette teaches a razor blade further comprising a thickness of between 1.3
micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a
thickness of between 2.2 micrometers to 2.7 micrometers from the ultimate tip at a distance of 8 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 3.8 micrometers and 4.9 micrometers
at a distance of 16 micrometers from said ultimate tip (page 2, lines 20-24).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.586 micrometers and 0.596 micrometers at a distance of 1.1 micrometers
from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.625 micrometers to 0.634 micrometers from the
ultimate tip at a distance of 1.2 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.664
micrometers and 0.673 micrometers at a distance of 1.3 micrometers from said ultimate tip, and a
thickness of between 0.705 micrometers and 0.712 micrometers at a distance of 1.4 micrometers
from the ultimate tip.
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 Curry to comprise a thickness of between 0.586 micrometers
and 0.596 micrometers at a distance of 1.1 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of
between 0.625 micrometers to 0.634 micrometers from the ultimate tip at a distance of 1.2
micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.664 micrometers and 0.673
micrometers at a distance of 1.3 micrometers from said ultimate tip, and a thickness of between
0.705 micrometers and 0.712 micrometers at a distance of 1.4 micrometers from the ultimate tip
in view of Gillette 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). Gillette teaches the thickness of the razor blade at a given
distance from the ultimate tip is a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to provide a
balance between edge strength and low cutting force or sharpness (Gillette, page 2 lines 30 -31).
Regarding claim 2, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 2.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.3 micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers from
said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 2.2 micrometers to 2.7 micrometers from the ultimate
tip at a distance of 8 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 3.8 micrometers
and 4.9 micrometers at a distance of 16 micrometers from said ultimate tip (page 2, lines 20-24).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.199 micrometers and 0.203 micrometers at a distance of 0.2 micrometers
from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.256 micrometers to 0.259 micrometers from the
ultimate tip at a distance of 0.3 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.307
micrometers and 0.308 micrometers at a distance of 0.4 micrometers from said ultimate tip, and a
thickness of between 0.351 micrometers and 0.355 micrometers at a distance of 0.5 micrometers
from the ultimate tip.
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 Curry and Gillette to comprise a thickness of between 0.199
micrometers and 0.203 micrometers at a distance of 0.2 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a
thickness of between 0.256 micrometers to 0.259 micrometers from the ultimate tip at a distance
of 0.3 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.307 micrometers and 0.308
micrometers at a distance of 0.4 micrometers from said ultimate tip, and a thickness of between
0.351 micrometers and 0.355 micrometers at a distance of 0.5 micrometers from the ultimate tip
in view of Gillette 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). Gillette identifies the thickness of the razor blade at a given
distance from the ultimate tip as a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to provide
a balance between edge strength and low cutting force or sharpness (Gillette, page 2 lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 3.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.3 micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers from
said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 2.2 micrometers to 2.7 micrometers from the ultimate
tip at a distance of 8 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 3.8 micrometers
and 4.9 micrometers at a distance of 16 micrometers from said ultimate tip (page 2, lines 20-24).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.392 micrometers and 0.398 micrometers at a distance of 0.6 micrometers
from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.431 micrometers to 0.439 micrometers from the
ultimate tip at a distance of 0.7 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.470
micrometers and 0.479 micrometers at a distance of 0.8 micrometers from said ultimate tip, and a
thickness of between 0.509 micrometers and 0.519 micrometers at a distance of 0.9 micrometers
from the ultimate tip.
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 Curry and Gillette to comprise a thickness of between 0.392
micrometers and 0.398 micrometers at a distance of 0.6 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a
thickness of between 0.431 micrometers to 0.439 micrometers from the ultimate tip at a distance
of 0.7 micrometers from said ultimate tip, a thickness of between 0.470 micrometers and 0.479 micrometers at a distance of 0.8 micrometers from said ultimate tip, and a thickness of between
0.509 micrometers and 0.519 micrometers at a distance of 0.9 micrometers from the ultimate tip
in view of Gillette 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). Gillette teaches thickness of the razor blade at a given distance
from the ultimate tip is a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to provide a balance
between edge strength and low cutting force or sharpness (Gillette, page 2 lines 30 -31).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 4.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.3 micrometers to 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers from the
ultimate tip (page 2, lines 20-21).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.547 micrometers and 0.557 micrometers at a distance of 1 micrometer
from the ultimate tip.
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 Curry and Gillette to comprise a thickness of between 0.547
micrometers and 0.557 micrometers at a distance of 1 micrometer from the ultimate tip in view
of Gillette 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). Gillette teaches the thickness of the razor blade at a given distance from the ultimate tip is a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to provide a balance between
edge strength and low cutting force or sharpness (Gillette, page 2 lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 6.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.3 micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers from
said ultimate tip and a thickness of between 2.2 micrometers to 2.7 micrometers at a distance of
8 micrometers from said ultimate tip (page 2, lines 20-23).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1 further comprising a
thickness of 0.747 micrometers and 0.751 micrometers at a distance of 1.5 micrometers from
said ultimate tip and a thickness of between 0.957 micrometers and 0.977 micrometers at a
distance of 2 micrometers from the ultimate tip.
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 Curry and Gillette to comprise a thickness of 0.747
micrometers and 0.751 micrometers at a distance of 1.5 micrometers from said ultimate tip and a
thickness of between 0.957 micrometers and 0.977 micrometers at a distance of 2 micrometers
from the ultimate tip as in view of Gillette 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). Gillette teaches the thickness of the razor blade at a
given distance from the ultimate tip is a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to
provide a balance between edge strength and low cutting force or sharpness (Gillette, page 2
lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette 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 thickness of the claim is the same as or obvious from a thickness 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).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 8.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 wherein a tip radius of said
razor blade ranges from 200 to 400 Angstroms (page 4, lines 30-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Curry and Gillette’s
tip to have tip radius of 200 to 400 Angstroms (which anticipates the range of 100 to 500
Angstroms) as taught by Gillette in order to increase shaving efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, further comprising an included angle of about 45 to about 65 degrees measured at a distance of 0.3 micrometers back from said sharpened tip (the tangent line of the function w=ad^n at w=0.3 micrometers with an a value of 0.92 and an n value of 0.75 is y=0.93232 x+0.09323. From the slope of the tangent line, at the point where w=0.3 the included angle is equal to arctan(0.93/1), the inverse tangent of the rise over the run, which is 43 degrees. The specification of the claimed invention defines “about” as plus or minus ten percent, making the effective claimed range 40.5 degrees to 69.5 degrees. Curry teaches an angle of approximately 43 degrees, which is within this range, and therefore anticipates the range.
Regarding claim 10, Curry teaches the substrate having a plurality of thicknesses that form a non-linear relationship relative to each other within the region from the ultimate tip to 2 micrometers back from the ultimate tip (the thicknesses formed within the first two micrometers back from the ultimate tip are defined by the equation provided on line 55 in Col. 6, the equation defining a non-linear profile for the razor blade).
Curry fails to teach the remaining elements set forth in claim 10.
However, Gillette teaches a razor blade comprising a coated substrate (Fig. 2, Substrate
11) with a cutting edge being defined by a coated tip (Fig. 2, examiner interprets that point at the
top of Substrate 11 is the coated tip), said coated substrate having a thickness of between 1.525
micrometers to 2.205 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers from said coated tip (The
substrate has a thickness of between 1.3 micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4
micrometers (page 2, lines 20-21). There are four layers of coating on the substrate: the interlayer (Fig. 2, Interlayer 34; page 3, lines 17-18), the hard coating layer (Fig. 2, Hard Coating
Layer 36; page 3, lines 28-29), the overcoat layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38; page 4, line 5), and the outer layer (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40; page 4, lines 16-17). Combining the thickness ranges for
all the layers in addition to the thickness of the substrate yields the thickness values provided).
Gillette does not specifically disclose a razor blade comprising a coated substrate with a
cutting edge being defined by a coated tip, said coated substrate having a thickness of between
0.167 micrometers to 0.212 micrometers at a distance of 0.1 micrometers from said coated tip.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the thickness of Curry to be between 0.167 micrometers to 0.212 micrometers at a distance of 0.1 micrometers as taught by Gillette as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification for the claimed invention, page 3 lines 9-12) 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 and Gillette being between 0.167 micrometers to 0.212 micrometers at a distance of 0.1 micrometers.
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 11.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 10 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.525 micrometers to 2.205 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers
from said coated tip (The substrate has a thickness of between 1.3 micrometers and 1.6
micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers (page 2, lines 20-21). There are four layers of coating
on the substrate: the interlayer (Fig. 2, Interlayer 34; page 3, lines 17-18), the hard coating layer (Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36; page 3, lines 28-29), the overcoat layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer
38; page 4, line 5), and the outer layer (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40; page 4, lines 16-17). Combining
the thickness ranges for all the layers in addition to the thickness of the substrate yields the
thickness values provided).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 10 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.244 and 0.308 at a distance of 0.2 micrometers from said coated tip.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the thickness of Curry and Gillette to be between 0.244 and 0.308 at a distance
of 0.2 micrometers as taught by Gillette as a matter of combining prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143) as applicant appears to have placed
no criticality on the claimed range (Specification for the claimed invention, page 3 lines 13 -14)
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 and
Gillette being between 0.244 and 0.308 at a distance of 0.2 micrometers.
Regarding claim 12, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 12.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 10 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.525 micrometers to 2.205 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers
from said coated tip, a thickness of between 2.425 micrometers and 3.305 micrometers at a
distance of 8 micrometers from said coated tip (The substrate has a thickness of between 1.3
micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers (page 2, lines 20 -21), and a thickness of between 2.2 and 2.7 micrometers at a distance of 8 micrometers (page 2, lines 21 -
23). There are four layers of coating on the substrate: the interlayer (Fig. 2, Interlayer 34; page 3,
lines 17-18), the hard coating layer (Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36; page 3, lines 28-29), the
overcoat layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38; page 4, line 5), and the outer layer (Fig. 2, Outer
Layer 40; page 4, lines 16-17). Combining the thickness ranges for all the layers in addition to
the thickness of the substrate yields the thickness values provided).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 10 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.412 micrometers to 0.525 micrometers at a distance of 0.5 micrometers
from said coated tip, a thickness of between 0.616 micrometers to 0.758 micrometers at a
distance of 1 micrometer from said coated tip.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the thickness of Curry and Gillette to be between 0.412 micrometers to 0.525
micrometers at a distance of 0.5 micrometers and between 0.616 micrometers to 0.758
micrometers at a distance of 1 micrometer as taught by Gillette as a matter of combining prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143) as applicant
appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification for the claimed
invention, page 3 lines 15-18) 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 and Gillette being between 0.412 micrometers to 0.525 micrometers at a
distance of 0.5 micrometers and between 0.616 micrometers to 0.758 micrometers at a distance
of 1 micrometer.
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 13.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 10 further comprising a
thickness of between 1.525 micrometers to 2.205 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers
from said coated tip, a thickness of between 2.425 micrometers and 3.305 micrometers at a
distance of 8 micrometers from said coated tip (The substrate has a thickness of between 1.3
micrometers and 1.6 micrometers at a distance of 4 micrometers (page 2, lines 20 -21), and a
thickness of between 2.2 and 2.7 micrometers at a distance of 8 micrometers (page 2, lines 21 -
23). There are four layers of coating on the substrate: the interlayer (Fig. 2, Interlayer 34; page 3,
lines 17-18), the hard coating layer (Fig. 2, Hard Coating Layer 36; page 3, lines 28-29), the
overcoat layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38; page 4, line 5), and the outer layer (Fig. 2, Outer
Layer 40; page 4, lines 16-17). Combining the thickness ranges for all the layers in addition to
the thickness of the substrate yields the thickness values provided).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 10 further comprising a
thickness of between 0.810 micrometers to 0.962 micrometers at a distance of 1.5 micrometers
from said coated tip, a thickness of between 1.023 micrometers to 1.173 micrometers at a
distance of 2 micrometers from said coated tip.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the thickness of Curry and Gillette to be between 0.810 micrometers to 0.962
micrometers at a distance of 1.5 micrometers and between 1.023 micrometers to 1.173
micrometers at a distance of 2 micrometers as taught by Gillette as a matter of combining prior
art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143) as
applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification for the
claimed invention, page 3 lines 19-22) 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 0.412
micrometers to 0.525 micrometers at a distance of 0.5 micrometers and between 0.616
micrometers to 0.758 micrometers at a distance of 1 micrometer.
Regarding claim 14, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette does not teach the
razor blade of claim 10 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 thickness of the claim is the same as or obvious from a thickness 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).
Regarding claim 15, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 10 wherein said
coated substrate is coated with one or materials (Col 3, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 16, Curry further teaches the razor blade of claim 15 wherein said one
or more materials comprises niobium, chromium, carbon, boron, titanium, or polymer containing
materials (Col 3, lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 17, the existing combination of Curry and Gillette fails to teach the
elements set forth in claim 17.
However, Gillette further teaches the razor blade of claim 10 wherein a wool cut force of
said razor blade is about 1.1 lbs (page 5, lines 8-9).
Gillette does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 10 wherein a wool cut
force of said razor blade is about 0.9 lbs.
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 Curry and Gillette to have a wool cut force of about 0.9 lbs as
taught by Gillette 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 (Gillette, page 5 lines 8-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that although Curry teaches a non-linear blade profile explicitly defined by an equation at any distance from the tip within two micrometers, Curry also teaches defining the profile of the blade up to 40 micrometers and therefore could not precisely or reliably teach the distance within two micrometers. While Applicant’s specification does discuss a way to reliably measure blade geometry near the ultimate tip, the plain meaning of the claim language is drawn to defining thicknesses at a certain distance from the tip of a non-linear blade, and Curry teaches non-linear blade geometry and defined thickness (with the use of the aforementioned equation in the rejection of claim 1) in the range focused on in the claims (within two micrometers of the ultimate tip). Having a model which defines up to 40 micrometers does not inherently mean that the model is not precise or reliable at the 0-2 micrometers range. Curry teaches a multi-point non-linear profile within two micrometers of the ultimate tip, and is appropriately used to teach the plain meaning of the claim language to which it is drawn. Curry does not highlight the importance of specific thickness at certain distances from the ultimate tip and rather uses a model to describe the overall shape of the blade profile, and so Claus is used to teach that there is a need in the art to have critical distances from the ultimate tip with critical corresponding thicknesses. While Claus does not teach thickness within a range of 2 micrometers from the ultimate tip, Claus does teach thicknesses starting at 4 micrometers from the ultimate tip. It has been held 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) and In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946). The examiner finds that a range of 4+ micrometers is sufficiently close to a range of 0-2 micrometers to have a prima facie case of obviousness. Similarly, Claus teaches multiple defined thicknesses of a blade profile near the tip (starting at 4 micrometers), and thereby does disclose the general conditions of the claim. Therefore, In re Aller is appropriately used. Applicant alleges that having a non-linear thickness profile in a region 0-2 micrometers is a critical and unexpected discovery, however Curry already teaches a non-linear thickness profile in this region, as defined by the equation on line 55 in Col. 6.
Applicant asserts in the arguments that provided wool cut force data, which is tied to the
thickness at a certain distance from the tip of the claimed razor, shows a surprising improvement over the prior art, and therefore underscores patentability. However, some differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of bot statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Only a mere conclusion that the thickness directly improved the wool force cut data is included, and this portion of the arguments alone is “not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration." Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492. In addition, it is not explained how the thickness impacts and leads to this improved wool cut force data, and "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights