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 May 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, and 15-16 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on 2/13/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 states that the organic coating material comprises “a thickness”, however a thickness belonging to the organic coating material has already been defined in claim 1. In light of the specification, the Examiner believes that these two introduced thicknesses refer to the same thickness, and therefore claim 12 should refer to the already defined thickness of claim 1 (from which claim 12 depends) by referring to “the thickness” of the non-fluorinated organic coating material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites that the organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 100 Angstroms, which is a limitation already required in its entirety by claim 1 (from which claim 12 depends). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Thomas G. Decker et al. (US 5799549 A – hereinafter Decker) in view of Sawada Koji
(JP H05115633 A – hereinafter Koji) and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 –
hereinafter Claus).
Regarding claim 1, Decker teaches a razor blade (Fig. 2, Blade Member 44) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3, Stainless Steel Body Portion 50) having a tip portion (Fig. 3, Tip Portion 52);
a hard coating layer (Fig. 3, Layer 60) deposited on the substrate, a material deposited in one or
more monolayers (Fig. 3, Adherent Telomer Layer 72; Col. 4, lines 47-49) on an outer bonding
surface of the hard coating; wherein the hard coating layer has an aspect ratio of (a) to (b) of at
least 1.5:1 (Fig. 3; Col. 4, lines 40-46), wherein (a) is a first distance from a tip defined by the
hard coating layer to the tip portion of the substrate, and (b) is a second distance from an outer
surface of the hard coating layer to an underlying surface of the substrate (Fig. 3, Col. 2, lines
28-34).
Decker fails to teach that the material deposited in one or more monolayers is a non -
fluorinated organic material, the non-fluorinated organic material comprising an organosilane,
and wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 500
Angstroms.
However, Koji further teaches a coating for a razor blade which comprises a non -
fluorinated organic material which is an organosilane (Page 3, para 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the material deposited in one or more monolayers on an outer bonding surface of
the hard coating of Decker to be a non-fluorinated organic material, specifically an organosilane,
as taught by Koji. Doing so provides the benefit of preventing shavings from attaching to the
blade, therefore preventing a loss of cutting quality and avoiding the generation of a bad smell
(Koji, Abstract).
Additionally, Claus teaches a coating layer which comprises a thickness as thin as 100
Angstroms (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40; Page 4, para 2 – layer can be as thin as 100 Angstroms).
Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the thickness of the combination of Decker and Koji to be less than 100 Angstroms 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 thickness of the outer layer is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it need to be optimized to improve first shave results (Claus, Page 4, para 2), therefore changing the thickness involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus already teaches
the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the organosilane is derived from bis(trimethylsilyl)amine
(Koji; Page 3, para 7 – it is well known in the art that bis(trimethylsilyl)amine and
hexamethyldisilazane refer to the same chemical compound).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus already teaches
the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the organosilane is derived from hexamethyldisiloxane (Page
3, para 7).
Regarding claim 5, Decker further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the aspect
ratio is at least 3.5:1 (Col. 3, lines 37-38).
Regarding claim 6, Decker further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the aspect
ratio is between 2:1 and 4:1 (Col. 3, lines 37-38). It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
aspect ratio of Decker to be between 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 as claimed as applicant appears to have
placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, page 16 para
2) 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).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus fails to teach
the razor blade of claim 1, wherein an outer shape of the non-fluorinated organic coating is the
same as an outer shape of the tip portion.
However, Claus teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein an outer shape of the
outermost layer of coating (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40) is the same as an outer shape of the tip
portion (Fig. 2, top half of Substrate 11 in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the outer shape of the non-fluorinated organic coating of the combination of
Decker, Koji, and Claus to be the same as an outer shape of the tip portion as taught by Claus as
a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in
the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus fails to teach
the razor blade of claim 1, comprising at least one of a thickness of between about 1.3 and 2.0
micrometers measured at a distance of four micrometers from a sharpened tip of the substrate, a
thickness of between about 2.3 and 3.5 micrometers measured at a distance of eight micrometers
from the sharpened tip, a thickness of between about 3.8 and 6.4 micrometers measured at a
distance of sixteen micrometers from the sharpened tip, a thickness of between about 9.3 and
16.2 micrometers measured at a distance of forty micrometers back from the sharpened tip, a
ratio of thickness measured at four micrometers to the thickness measured at eight micrometers
of at least 0.55 and a ratio of thickness measured at four micrometers to the thickness measured
at sixteen micrometers of at least 0.28.
However, Claus teaches a thickness of between about 1.3 and 1.6 micrometers measured
at a distance of four micrometers from a sharpened tip of the substrate, a thickness of between
about 2.2 and 2.7 micrometers measured at a distance of eight micrometers from the sharpened
tip, a thickness of between about 3.8 and 4.9 micrometers measured at a distance of sixteen
micrometers from the sharpened tip, a ratio of thickness measured at four micrometers to the
thickness measured at eight micrometers of at least 0.55 and a ratio of thickness measured at four
micrometers to the thickness measured at sixteen micrometers of at least 0.30 (Fig. 1; Page 4,
Detailed Description para 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the thicknesses and ratios of thicknesses of the combination of Decker, Koji, and
Claus to be those of Claus. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of filing to modify the thicknesses and ranges of thicknesses of the combination of
Decker, Koji, and Claus to be those of the claimed range 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 thicknesses and ratios of
thicknesses are disclosed to be result effective variables as they need to be optimized to provide a
balance between edge strength and low cutting force (Claus; Page 2, Detailed Description para
3), therefore changing the thickness and ratios of thicknesses involves only adjusting the
dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Regarding claim 9, Decker further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the razor
blade further comprises a body portion (Fig. 3, the portion of Stainless Steel Body Portion 50
that is below Tip Portion 52 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Decker further teaches the razor blade of claim 9, wherein the non-
fluorinated organic coating material (Fig. 3, Adherent Telomer Layer 72) is deposited on the tip
portion (Fig. 3, Tip Portion 52) and at least a section of the body portion (Fig. 3, the portion of
Stainless Steel Body Portion 50 that is below Tip Portion 52 in Fig. 3; it can be seen in Fig. 3
that the coating extends downwards from the tip portion to also cover the body portion).
Regarding claim 12, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 100 Angstroms (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Decker further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-
fluorinated organic coating (Fig. 3, Adherent Telomer Layer 72) has a surface energy of less than
33 dynes/cm (Col. 6, lines 4-6 – PTFE is used as a coating. It is well known in the art that PTFE
has a surface energy of about 19 dynes/cm, which is less than 33 dynes/cm).
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus fails to teach
the razor blade of claim 1, further comprising at least one additional layer of material disposed
between the hard coating layer and the non-fluorinated organic coating material, wherein at least
one additional layer of material comprises one or more of: (i) diamond, amorphous diamond, or
diamond-like-carbon (DLC); or (ii) chromium, platinum, boron, chromium diboride, tin,
titanium, titanium diboride, vanadium, aluminum, silicon, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, hafnium,
tantalum, tungsten, zirconium, molybdenum, or niobium, and oxides, nitrides, and oxynitrides
thereof.
However, Claus teaches at least one additional layer of material disposed between the
hard coating layer and the outermost layer, wherein at least one additional layer of material
comprises a chromium containing material (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38; Page 4 para 1).
Therefore, 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 Decker and Koji to comprise at least one
additional layer of material disposed between the hard coating layer and the non -fluorinated
organic coating material comprising the claimed materials as taught by Claus. The additional
layer is beneficial as it facilitates bonding between the hard coating layer and the outermost layer
(Claus, Page 4 para 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas G.
Decker et al. (US 5799549 A – hereinafter Decker) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633
A – hereinafter Koji) and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus)
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US
20140360021 A1 – hereinafter Sonnenberg).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Decker, Koji, and Claus does not
specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating is
not a gel.
However, Sonnenberg teaches a coating for a razor blade which comprises a porous solid
infiltrated with a liquid ([0048], examiner interprets that this porous solid infiltrated with a liquid
is not a gel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the non-fluorinated organic coating of the combination of Decker and Koji to
not be a gel as taught by Sonnenberg. Doing so provides the benefit of preventing the growth of
bacteria (Sonnenberg, [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that routine optimization of the thickness of the coating layer of Claus cannot be used since Claus teaches a range of 100 Angstroms or greater while the claimed range is less than 100 Angstroms, and Claus additionally teaches away from the claimed range. Applicant believes since the “typical” range of Claus for the thickness of the outer layer is stated to be 1,500 Angstrom to 4,000 Angstrom, Claus teaches away from a range lower than this, as it would allegedly increase friction and frustrate the purpose of the outer layer. After careful examination of Claus, examiner had found nothing in Claus which would suggest that a range below 1,500 Angstroms would increase friction and frustrate the purpose of the outer layer. Claus instead suggests that a lower thickness range would improve first shave results (Page 4, lines 18 and 19). Further, stating that a range “could typically be 1,500 Angstroms to 4,000 Angstroms” does not constitute teaching away from the use of a lower range, especially since using a lower range is suggested immediately afterwards on line 17 of page 4.
Applicant additionally argues that since the material of the layer of Claus is a different material, the combination is improper. However, Claus is used to teach the thickness of the outermost layer of a razor blade, not the thickness of a specific material on a razor blade.
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