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
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending in the Amendment filed 08/21/2025.
The previous rejections of record not repeated below have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 (requiring, inter alia, “the second heating stage temperature is greater than the first heating stage temperature”):
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pandis et al. (WO 2022049058 A1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandis et al. (WO 2022049058 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 as applied above.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandis et al. (WO 2022049058 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 as applied above, in view of Chadwick et al. (US 20180229384 A1).
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/230778 (reference application).
Claim 2 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 amended claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 2 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 2 recites, “the second heating stage is performed at a higher temperature than the first heating stage”, and therefore fails to further limit claim 1, which already requires, “wherein the second heating stage temperature is greater than the first heating stage temperature.”
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pandis et al. (WO 2022049058 A1).
As to claim 1, Pandis discloses a method of manufacturing a razor blade cutting edge [Abstract], the method comprising:
a) applying a single coating of a polymer material to the razor blade cutting edge to form a coated blade edge [claim 1]; and
b) performing a single heating of the coated blade edge to adhere the polymer material to the razor blade cutting edge [claim 1; claim 5] wherein the single heating of the coated blade edge comprises a first heating stage and a second heating stage [claims 5-6].
As to amended claim 1, Pandis discloses:
the first heating stage is performed at a temperature of between 500-795°F, wherein the first heating stage lasts at least 40 seconds [claim 6; para. 0028, “maximum temperature (e.g., from approximately 330 degrees Celsius to approximately 360 degrees Celsius)”, “may hold blades 16 at the maximum temperature for a period of time (e.g., approximately 1 minute, approximately 2 minutes, approximately 3 minutes, etc., or shorter or longer)”; para. 0028; See also para. 0026]; and
the second heating stage is performed at a temperature of between 500-795°F, wherein the second heating stage lasts at least 40 seconds [claim 6; para. 0028],
wherein the second heating stage is performed at a higher temperature than the first heating stage [claim 6].
Here, as to claim 6 and para. 0028 of Pandis, Pandis teaches a maximum temperature of 626 degrees to 680 degrees Fahrenheit, which is entirely within the claimed ranges, and therefore provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed temperature range. See MPEP 2131.03, II. Pandis further teaches an explicit example of 2 minutes, which anticipates the claimed time period of at least 40 seconds for the first heating stage, and at least 40 seconds for the second heating stage. See MPEP 2131.03, I.
As to claim 2, Pandis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second heating stage is performed at a higher temperature than the first heating stage [claim 6; See also, rejection of claim 1].
As to claim 8, Pandis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising cooling the coated blade edge after performing the single heating of the coated blade edge [claim 1].
As to claim 9, Pandis discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the coated blade edge is cooled to room temperature [claim 1].
As to claim 13, Pandis discloses the razor blade cutting edge produced according to the method of claim 1 [claim 1, claim 5-6].
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandis et al. (WO 2022049058 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 as applied above.
As to claim 4, Pandis discloses method of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose (emphasis added):
wherein the first heating stage is performed at a temperature of 600°F [para. 0026] for at least 40 seconds, and wherein the second heating stage is performed at a temperature of 745°F for at least 40 second [para. 0028].
Pandis teaches two heating stages as follows:
Step 204 includes sintering blades 16 coated with the deposited PTFE to a temperature above the melting temperature of the fluoro-containing polymer. Heating may occur above the melting point of the polymer to form a continuous film that is well adhered to the blades. For example, step 204 may include placing blades 16 into a furnace, for example, by placing the blade holder in a furnace. In some aspects, the furnace may be a conveyor furnace. In step 204, the furnace may heat blades 16 and the fluoro-containing polymer to a temperature near or above the melting temperature of fluoro-containing polymer (e.g., from approximately 200 degrees Celsius to approximately 400 degrees Celsius, at or above approximately 300 degrees Celsius, from approximately 330 degrees Celsius to approximately 380 degrees Celsius, at or above approximately 330 degrees Celsius, or at or above approximately 360 degrees Celsius). The furnace may heat blades 16 and the fluoro-containing polymer incrementally or otherwise at a controlled rate. For example, the furnace may heat blades 16 from the initial room temperature (e.g., approximately 20-30 degrees Celsius) to an intermediate temperature from approximately 200 degrees Celsius to approximately 300 degrees Celsius at a rate of from approximately 40 degrees Celsius per minute to approximately 60 degrees Celsius per minute. Then, the furnace may heat blades 16 from the intermediate temperature to a maximum temperature (e.g., from approximately 330 degrees Celsius to approximately 360 degrees Celsius) at a rate of approximately 5 degrees Celsius per minute to approximately 20 degrees Celsius per minute, for example, approximately 10 degrees Celsius per minute. [29] The furnace may hold blades 16 at the maximum temperature for a period of time (e.g., approximately 1 minute, approximately 2 minutes, approximately 3 minutes, etc., or shorter or longer). [para. 0028].
Thus, Pandis teaches the first heating stage is performed at a temperature of between 572 degrees to 690 degrees Fahrenheit, and further teaches the second heating stage is performed at a temperature of up to 752 degrees Fahrenheit (i.e., 400 degrees Celsius) for one minute, or two minutes, etc. [para. 0028], which anticipates the claimed time for the second heating stage of “at least 40 seconds”.
The disclosed temperature ranges of Pandis substantially overlap with, and therefore render prima facie obvious, the claimed temperatures of the first and second heating stages. See MPEP 2144.01, I.
After reaching the intermediate temperature, Pandis alters the rate of temperature change to a rate of “approximately 5 degrees Celsius per minute to approximately 20 degrees Celsius per minute”, which means, at most, the temperature is held roughly constant for 12 to 3 seconds.
However, Pandis teaches that the purpose of the sintering phase (step 204) is to reach a temperature 1-40 degrees above the melting point of the fluoro-containing polymer (approximately 323 to approximately 327 degrees Celsius) [para. 0023], in order to form a continuous film that is well adhered to the blade [para. 0028] and of uniform thickness [para. 0044; para. 0048].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature above the melting point and the time of applied during the intermediate sintering step of Pandis, in order to achieve a desired polymer layer of a desired thickness and uniformity, as taught by Pandis [para. 0028; 0044; 0048], with predictable results.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandis et al. (WO 2022049058 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 as applied above, in view of Chadwick et al. (US 20180229384 A1).
As to claim 5, Pandis discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein applying the coating of the polymer material comprises applying a dispersion of the polymer material in a dispersing medium.
However, Chadwick, directed to the same field of endeavor [Abstract], teaches a PTFE film may be formed on a razor blade by spraying with a dispersing medium or, among other methods, by thermal chemical vapor deposition [para. 0003-4; para. 0083-86] before sintering and treating with a FLUTEC solution to remove part of the PTFE film to provide enhanced blade edge attributes [Abstract; para. 0046-47; claims 1 and 12].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a PTFE film on a razor blade by thermal chemical vapor deposition, of Pandis, to include forming a PTFE film on a razor blade by spraying PTFE with a dispersing medium, of Chadwick, because it is an effective alternative to thermal-CVD and results in improved quality, cost, and environmental issues , as taught by Chadwick [para. 0003-4].
As to claim 6, modified Pandis discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the polymer material comprises a polyfluorocarbon [claim 14; para. 0032, 0003; Chadwick, para. 0003-4].
As to claim 7, modified Pandis discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the polyfluorocarbon comprises polytetrafluoroethylene [claim 14; para. 0032, 0003; Chadwick, para. 0003-4].
As to claim 8, modified Pandis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising cooling the coated blade edge after performing the single heating of the coated blade edge [claim 1; Chadwick, para. 0047].
As to claim 9, modified Pandis discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the coated blade edge is cooled to room temperature [Chadwick, para. 0047; Here, room temperature can be fairly inferred from the teaching of “cooling the blades” after a heating step (i.e., returning the blades to a non-heated state), or alternatively as being immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art for the end use of the blade].
As to claim 10, modified Pandis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising treating the coated blade edge with a solvent [Chadwick, para. 0046-47] or a mechanical process to partially remove the coating.
Here, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a PTFE film on a razor blade by, of Pandis, to include treating the coated blade with FLUTEC, of Chadwick, in order to partially remove the PTFE layer to a desired film thickness and thereby provide enhanced blade edge attributes, as taught by Chadwick [Abstract].
As to claim 11, modified Pandis discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the solvent comprises perfluoroperhydrophenanthrene (C14F24) [Chadwick, para. 0046-47].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/230778 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘778, as listed above, and taking into account their dependencies, anticipate instant claims 1 and 2.
Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 7 (as it depends from claims 1 and 6), or alternatively by claim 9 (as it depends from claim 1).
Instant claim 2 is anticipated by claim 7 (as it depends from claims 1 and 6), or alternatively by claim 9 (as it depends from claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713