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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification (24 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “non-fluorinated organic coating material” should read –the non-fluorinated organic coating material--. Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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 David (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 “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 method 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 Angtroms 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’s arguments with respect to claims 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. See new art, Fairbourn above.
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
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 3/26/2026
Prosecution Insights