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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairbourn (US 2012/0029514 A1) in view of King (US 2004/0163262) and Sastri (US 4139942).
Regarding claim 1, Fairbourn discusses a razor blade (see Figure 1 and Para. 39 “a scalpel…detachable cutting end 24”) comprising a substrate (26, Figure 1 and see Para. 40 recites “titanium or titanium alloy”) having a sharpened cutting edge (29) with an outer bonding surface (an outer surface 27 of the blade or the cutting end 24), and
a non-fluorinated organic coating material (a coating 30, Figure 1, and see Para. 41 recites “The liquid silane is then dried to form the hard coating 30…a polyfunctional silane”. Also see the liquid silane in Paras. 47-48) that is not a gel deposited on the outer bonding surface forming an outermost layer of the sharpened cutting edge (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the outermost layer of the sharpened cutting edge is composed of one or more self-assembled monolayers (see Para. 41 recites “one or more layers of coating 30 may be applied…”; also see Applicant’s specification, page 23, the first paragraph “the non-fluorinated organic material, particularly silanes, may form a coating as a self- assembling monolayer” (emphasis added), therefore, the one or more layers of silane coating 30 is a self- assembling monolayer. Also see Self-assembled monolayer - Wikipedia that common head groups include silanes).
Please note that the invention is directed to a product (a razor blade), a recitation of the intended use of the “self-assembled monolayers” is only given weight inasmuch as it infers structure in a final production (a razor blade), which it does not clearly do, and therefore the razor blade of Fairbourn (as discussed above) meets the claimed limitation.
Further notes that the invention is directed to a razor blade (product) including a non-fluorinated organic coating material (silane groups), the process of a solution “self-assembled” monolayers is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself except to the extent that certain structures are created. Therefore, this process has not been given patentable weight. It is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113.
However, Fairbourn silently discusses that at least one of the one or more self-assembled monolayers is less than 30 Angstroms thick.
King discusses thickness of a coating on a cutting edge is 7-10 Angstroms in Para. 65.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coating on the cutting edge of Fairbourn to be 7-10 Angstroms, as taught by King, in order to provide an extremely sharp edge (as discussed in Para. 5 of King).
Further, the thickness of a coating on a cutting edge less than 30 Angstroms is an old and well understood results-effective-variable. See Sastri’s reference, generally a coating on a razor blade is between 50-600 Angstroms (Col. 2, lines 14-19) and also discusses a thin coatings, i.e. less than 100 angstroms, have negligible adverse effects on the edges and don't require resharpening (Col. 2, lines 63-67).
Therefore, the claimed range (the thickness of the coating less than 30 Angstroms) would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges, depending on the strength, low cutting force and sharpness of the blade requirements to be manufactured. See the discussion of Sastri’s reference, the thin coatings have negligible adverse effects on the edges and don't require resharpening and the coating having greater thicknesses will have a higher cutting force leading to an increased tug and increased discomfort for the user during shaving or cutting. This proves that the blade coating thickness range is a known results-effective variable, and one of ordinary skill can change that thickness of blade coating to affect the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 18, the modified blade of Fairbourn shows that the non-fluorinated organic coating material is silanes (see the discussion of silane groups in claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claim, the previous objection is mooted.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reason below:
With regards to “Fairbourn…apply a silanes solution “liberally and any excess is poured off” and Applicant also states that “Unlike Applicants, Fairbourn uses a solution that “will have about 1 % to about 20% silane by weight (Fairbourn, [0049]). The solution is an aqueous/alcohol solvent solution containing from about 1-2% to about 30% de-ionized water with the remainder being a lower alcohol such as methanol, ethanol, propanol or the like in combination with the silane and generally acetic acids to establish a pH of about 4-6 … formed coating 30 will be 0.01 to 2.0 g/cm2 of surface” (emphasis added), the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive because applicant argues that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., whatever is “Unlike Applicants”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, while reading claim 1, it is unclear what the solution (non-fluorinated organic coating material) be.
Further, please note that this invention is directly to a product (a razor blade). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product 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); In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979). Also, see MPEP. 2113, section II.
What is a final product (Applicant’s razor blade) different from the art’s razor blade?
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights