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. Claims 9 and 1 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 17-20 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 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, 7-8, 10-12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Roger L. Perry (US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada
Koji (JP H05115633 A – hereinafter Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 –
hereinafter Sonnenberg), and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter
Claus).
Regarding claim 1, Perry teaches a razor blade comprising an asymmetric substrate (Fig.
3, Member 18).
Perry fails to teach that the razor blade comprises a non-fluorinated organic coating
extending along a first and second outer sides of the asymmetric substrate from a tip region
toward a base of the substrate, wherein the non-fluorinated coating comprises 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 razor blade of Perry to have a non-fluorinated organic coating comprising
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).
Perry and Koji do not specifically disclose that the coating extends along a first and
second outer sides of the asymmetric substrate from a tip region toward a base of the substrate ,
and wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 500
Angstroms.
However, Sonnenberg teaches a coating (Fig. 6, Coating 64) on a razor blade which
extends along a first and second outer sides (Fig. 5, Flanks 53) of the substrate (Fig. 6, Substrate
52) from a tip region (Fig. 6, Tip Portion 54) toward a base (Fig. 6, bottom portion of the
substrate) of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the shape of the coating of the combination of Perry and Koji so that it extends
along a first and second outer sides of the asymmetric substrate from a tip region toward a base
of the substrate as taught by Sonnenberg as doing so requires only changing the shape of the
coating and it has been held that 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.
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 Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg 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 needs 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 7, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, 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 8, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the organosilane is derived from
hexamethyldisiloxane (Koji; Page 3, para 7).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, 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 region.
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
Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to be the same as an outer shape of the tip portion as taught
by Claus as it has been held that 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 11, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises an
outermost layer (the non-fluorinated organic coating is the only layer, and therefore it is the
outermost layer).
The existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus fails to teach wherein
the coating comprises at least one additional layer.
However, Claus teaches a razor blade with an outermost layer (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40)
and at least one additional layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38 and Hard Coating Layer 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg to comprise at
least one additional layer as taught by Claus. The additional layers are beneficial as they provide
improved strength and corrosion resistance, as well reduce tip rounding (Claus, Page 4 para 1
and page 3 para 4).
Regarding claim 12, Perry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the razor
blade further comprises a body portion (Fig. 3, portion of Member 18 between Faces 32 and 34).
Regarding claim 14, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
does not teach the razor blade of claim 12, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating material
is deposited on the tip portion and at least a section of the body portion.
However, Sonnenberg further teaches the razor blade of claim 12, wherein the coating
material (Fig. 6, Coating 64) is deposited on the tip portion (Fig. 6, Tip Portion 54) and at least a
section of the body portion (Fig. 6, examiner interprets that body portion is formed below
separated from the tip portion at the first angle formed on the side of substrate 52 as measured
from the tip portion in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus so that it is
deposited on the tip portion and at least a section of the body portion as taught by Sonnenberg as
doing so requires only changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that 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 17, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic
coating has a surface energy of less than 33 dynes/cm.
However, Claus teaches a coating for a razor blade that has a surface energy of less than
33 dynes/cm (Claus, Page 4 para 2 - 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to have a
surface energy of less than 33 dynes/cm as taught by Claus. It is well known in the art, and
discussed in Koji (Koji, Page 2 para 2), that a low surface energy coating is beneficial as water
and debris is less likely to adhere to it.
Regarding claim 18, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic
coating has a surface energy of less than 25 dynes/cm.
However, Claus teaches a coating for a razor blade that has a surface energy of less than
25 dynes/cm (Claus, Page 4 para 2 - 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 25 dynes/cm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to have a
surface energy of less than 25 dynes/cm as taught by Claus. It is well known in the art, and
discussed in Koji (Koji, Page 2 para 2), that a low surface energy coating is beneficial as water
and debris is less likely to adhere to it.
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating is not a
gel.
However, Sonnenberg further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non -
fluorinated organic coating is not a gel ([0048], examiner interprets that the 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 Perry, Koji,
Sonnenberg, and Claus to not be a gel as taught by Sonnenberg. Doing so provides the benefit of
preventing the growth of bacteria (Sonnenberg, [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Perry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 comprising a tip
portion (Fig. 3, portion of razor blade that comprises Edge 26) having a cutting edge (Fig. 3,
Edge 26) defined by a sharpened tip (Fig. 3, point that defines the protruding end of Edge 26 )
that comprise flanks (Fig. 3, the left and right sides of the razor blade that converge at Edge 26)
that converge at a sharpened tip, the flanks each comprise one or more bevels of unequal length
(Fig. 3, the faces that are immediately to the left and right of Edge 26), wherein a first, and
longer, outer side may define a skin- contacting surface (Fig. 3, the face immediately to the right
of Edge 26), and the second, and shorter, outer side may define a hair-cutting surface (Fig. 3, the
face immediately to the left of Edge 26).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger L.
Perry (US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633 A –
hereinafter Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 – hereinafter
Sonnenberg), and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus) as
applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Park Min Joo (KR 20220056102 A
– hereinafter Joo).
Regarding claim 2, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does
not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a split line of the substrate coincides
with a centerline of the non-fluorinated organic coating.
However, Joo teaches wherein a split line (Fig. 8(b), Central Line CL) of the substrate
(Fig. 8(b), substrate defined by Substrate Tip 112B) coincides with a centerline of the coating
(Fig. 8(b), coating defined by Final Tip 122B; examiner interprets that a centerline of the coating
would extend downwards from Final Tip 122B and parallel to the Central Line of the substrate,
and therefore the centerline of the coating coincides with the centerline of the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the split line of the substrate of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg
to coincide with the centerline of the coating as taught by Joo. Doing so is beneficial as all the
pressing force transmitted from the substrate tip is applied to the cutting of body hair without
dissipating as a moment, allowing shaving to be performed with less force (Joo, Page 10 para
10).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does
not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the coating is an asymmetric coating
having a centerline is offset from a centerline of the substrate.
However, Joo teaches wherein the coating is an asymmetric coating (Fig. 2, Coating 120)
having a centerline (Fig. 2, Vertical Line PL) is offset from a centerline (Fig. 2, Center Line CL)
of the substrate (Fig. 2, Substrate 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to be
asymmetric as taught by Joo. Doing so is beneficial as relatively increasing the thickness of the
coating formed on one side of the substrate improves the durability of that side (Joo, Page 4 para
11). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the centerline of the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg
such that it is offset from a centerline of the substrate as taught by Joo as doing so requires only
changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that 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 4, as discussed above, Joo teaches wherein the centerline of the
asymmetric coating is offset from the centerline of the substrate. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the centerline of the asymmetric
coating of the combination of combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo to be
offset by at least 3 degrees from the centerline of the substrate. A person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and
common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The offset of at least 3 degrees would have been
obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in
the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The examiner recognized that there was a design need to dimension the coating of the
blade of Joo in view of Fig. 2 to have a specific thickness on one side of the blade to improve the
durability of that side, which is a design need based in the art of cutting blades. Modifying the
coating thickness of one side of the blade creates an asymmetric coating and changes the angle of
the centerline of that coating with respect to a centerline of the substrate. Based on the teachings
provided by Joo, the Examiner concludes that modifying the thickness such that the centerline of
the asymmetric coating is offset from a centerline of the substrate by at least 3 degrees creates an
increased coating thickness on one side of the blade which improves the durability of that side.
(2) A finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential
solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The examiner recognizes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there
are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the offset angle between the
two centerlines in order to allow the blade to perform the intended cutting operation. The value
of an offset of 0 degrees taught by Joo would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a
baseline value to begin experimentation. In other words, one would have prompted to try various
values above 0 degrees before arriving at the thickness on one side of the blade which improves
the durability of that side and results in the claimed offset angle.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential
solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner determined that based on the teachings of Joo, the modified blade of the
combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo could have an offset angle as set forth
by Joo, since an offset angle greater than 0 degrees but less than 90 degrees would not jeopardize
the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been
knowledgeable that the expectation of success of providing the offset angle of at least 3 degrees
would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be
necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain the conclusion of
obviousness.
The examiner recognized that Joo teaches a coating thickness on one side of a blade
greater than a thickness on the opposing side of the blade leading to an offset angle between the
centerline of the coating and the centerline of the substrate of the blade, which is in view of the
facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have
been prompted to try various relative thicknesses leading to offset angles greater than 0 degrees
as taught by Joo to find the thickness of one side that improves the durability of that side.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Joo teaches wherein the centerline of the
asymmetric coating is offset from the centerline of the substrate. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the centerline of the asymmetric
coating of the combination of combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo to be
offset by at least 8 degrees from the centerline of the substrate. A person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and
common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The offset of at least 8 degrees would have been
obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in
the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The examiner recognized that there was a design need to dimension the coating of the
blade of Joo in view of Fig. 2 to have a specific thickness on one side of the blade to improve the
durability of that side, which is a design need based in the art of cutting blades. Modifying the
coating thickness of one side of the blade creates an asymmetric coating and changes the angle of
the centerline of that coating with respect to a centerline of the substrate. Based on the teachings
provided by Joo, the Examiner concluded that modifying the thickness such that the centerline of
the asymmetric coating is offset from a centerline of the substrate by at least 8 degrees creates an
increased coating thickness on one side of the blade which improves the durability of that side.
(2) A finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential
solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The examiner recognizes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there
are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the offset angle between the
two centerlines in order to allow the blade to perform the intended cutting operation. The value
of an offset of 0 degrees taught by Joo would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a
baseline value to begin experimentation. In other words, one would have prompted to try various
values above 0 degrees before arriving at the thickness on one side of the blade which improves
the durability of that side and results in the claimed offset angle.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential
solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner determined that based on the teachings of Joo, the modified blade of the
combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo could have an offset angle as set forth
by Joo, since an offset angle greater than 0 degrees but less than 90 degrees would not jeopardize
the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been
knowledgeable that the expectation of success of providing the offset angle of at least 8 degrees
would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be
necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain the conclusion of
obviousness.
The examiner recognized that Joo teaches a coating thickness on one side of a blade
greater than a thickness on the opposing side of the blade leading to an offset angle between the
centerline of the coating and the centerline of the substrate of the blade, which is in view of the
facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have
been prompted to try various relative thicknesses leading to offset angles greater than 0 degrees
as taught by Joo to find the thickness of one side that improves the durability of that side.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger L. Perry
(US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633 A – hereinafter
Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 – hereinafter Sonnenberg), and Oliver
H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus) as applied to claim 12 above, and
further in view of Tomasz Hejmowski et al. (US 9969094 B2 – hereinafter Hejmowski).
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus
fails to teach the razor blade of claim 12, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating material is
deposited only on the tip portion.
However, Hejmowski teaches a razor blade where the coating material (Fig. 9b, Coating
Layer 66) is only deposited on the tip portion (Fig. 9b, Blade Tip 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus such that
the coating is only deposited on the tip portion as taught by Hejmowski as doing so requires only
changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that 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.
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