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 1-17 are pending in the Amendment filed 08/21/2025.
The prior art rejections of record are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 (limiting the claimed single temperature to “about 745 °F”).
However, claims 1-17 are rejected as set forth below in view of newly applied reference to Trankiem (US 5645894 A).
Further claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claims 10 and 11 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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.
Newly applied reference to Trankiem (US 5645894 A) discloses a method of treating a PTFE-coated razor blade cutting edge with a heating process, comprising: “The heating conditions, i.e. maximum temperature, length of time, etc., obviously must be adjusted so as to avoid substantial decomposition of the polymer and/or excessive tempering of the metal of the cutting edge. Preferably the temperature should not exceed 430.degree. C.” [col. 7, lines 30-34].
Trankiem therefore teaches the heating step may reach temperatures of up to about 806 °F (i.e., 430 °C), which includes the claimed temperature of 745 °F, and therefore supports a prima facie case over the claim temperature. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Trankiem further teaches that the temperature of the heating step is a result-effective variable: “The heating must be sufficient to permit the individual particles of polymer to, at least sinter. Preferably, the heating must be sufficient to permit the polymer to spread into a substantially continuous film of the proper thickness and to cause it to become firmly adherent to the blade edge material.” [col. 7, lines 24-29]. Here, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating temperature of Trankiem to achieve a desired film thickness, as taught by Trankiem [col. 7, lines 24-29]. See MPEP 2144.05, II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the solvent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 10 should depend from claim 9, which recites “a solvent”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the mechanical process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 11 should depend from claim 9, which recites “a mechanical process”.
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 3 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 3 recites “the single heating of the coated blade edge is performed at a temperature of 700 °F”, which contradicts and therefore fails to include the limitation of claim 1, which recites “said single temperature is about 745 °F”.
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
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 1-8, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trankiem (US 5645894 A).
As to claim 1, Trankiem discloses a method of manufacturing a razor blade cutting edge [Abstract, claim 1], 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 at a single temperature of between 620°F and 795°F for a predefined time to adhere the polymer material to the razor blade cutting edge wherein the single heating of the coated blade edge comprises one or more heating stages and wherein each of said one or more heating stages is set at said single temperature, wherein the said single temperature is about 745 °F [claim 1; Example; col. 7, lines 30-34].
As to “wherein the said single temperature is about 745 °F”, Trankiem teaches: “The heating conditions, i.e. maximum temperature, length of time, etc., obviously must be adjusted so as to avoid substantial decomposition of the polymer and/or excessive tempering of the metal of the cutting edge. Preferably the temperature should not exceed 430.degree. C.” [col. 7, lines 30-34].
Trankiem therefore teaches the heating step may reach temperatures of up to about 806 °F (i.e., 430 °C), which includes the claimed temperature of 745 °F, and therefore supports a prima facie case over the claim temperature. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Trankiem further teaches that the temperature of the heating step is a result-effective variable: “The heating must be sufficient to permit the individual particles of polymer to, at least sinter. Preferably, the heating must be sufficient to permit the polymer to spread into a substantially continuous film of the proper thickness and to cause it to become firmly adherent to the blade edge material.” [col. 7, lines 24-29]. Here, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating temperature of Trankiem to achieve a desired film thickness, as taught by Trankiem [col. 7, lines 24-29]. See MPEP 2144.05, II.
As to claim 2, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the single heating of the coated blade edge is performed for at least 40 seconds [col. 7, lines 12-19].
Here, Trankiem teaches that “[t]he period of time during which the heating is continued may vary widely, from as little as several seconds to as long as several hours”, which overlaps and therefore supports a prima facie case of obvious over the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to claim 3, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the single heating of the coated blade edge is performed at a temperature of 700°F [col. 7, lines 30-34].
Trankiem teaches the heating step may reach temperatures of up to about 806 °F (i.e., 430 °C), which includes the claimed temperature of 700 °F, and therefore supports a prima facie case over the claim temperature. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Trankiem further teaches that the temperature of the heating step is a result-effective variable: “The heating must be sufficient to permit the individual particles of polymer to, at least sinter. Preferably, the heating must be sufficient to permit the polymer to spread into a substantially continuous film of the proper thickness and to cause it to become firmly adherent to the blade edge material.” [col. 7, lines 24-29]. Here, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating temperature of Trankiem to achieve a desired film thickness, as taught by Trankiem [col. 7, lines 24-29]. See MPEP 2144.05, II.
As to claim 4, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein applying the coating of the polymer material comprises applying a dispersion of the polymer material in a dispersing medium [col. 7, lines 45-54, Example]
As to claim 5, Trankiem discloses the e method of claim 4, wherein the polymer material comprises a polyfluorocarbons [col. 7, lines 45-54, Example]
As to claim 6, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the polyfluorocarbon comprises polytetrafluoroethylene [col. 7, lines 45-54, Example]
As to claim 7, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising cooling the coated blade edge after performing the heating of the coated blade edge [claim 1; col. 7, lines 11-34].
Here, Trankiem controls the temperature of the blade to achieve a desired film thickness, and thus must inherently include a cooling step as to avoid further sintering of the film after achieves the desired thickness]. Moreover, the blade must be subject to cooling (e.g., to room temperature) for its intended use, and therefore must inherently include a cooling step.
As to claim 8, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the coated blade edge is cooled to room temperature [claim 1; col. 7, lines 11-34].
Here, Trankiem controls the temperature of the blade to achieve a desired film thickness, and thus must inherently include a cooling step as to avoid further sintering of the film after achieves the desired thickness]. Moreover, the blade must be subject to cooling (e.g., to room temperature) for its intended use, and therefore must inherently include a cooling step.
As to claim 12, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said single heating comprises only one heating stage [claims 1 and 5; para. 0028].
As to claim 13, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said one or more heating stages is a first heating stage and a second heating stage [claim 1; col. 7, lines 11-34 (e.g., bringing the substrate to temperature, then holding the temperature)].
As to claim 14, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the razor blade cutting edge comprises a substrate and no layers of material [claim 1; col. 7, Example, “Blades”] or one or more layers of material disposed between the substrate and the polymer material.
As to claim 17, Trankiem discloses the razor blade cutting edge produced according to the method of claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1].
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trankiem (US 5645894 A), as applied to claims 1-8, 12-14, and 17 above, and further in view of Chadwick et al. (US 20180229384 A1).
As to claim 9, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising treating the coated blade edge with a solvent or a mechanical process to partially remove the coating.
However, Chadwick, directed to the same field of endeavor [Abstract], teaches a PTFE film may be formed on a razor blade, comprising a razor substrate or a substrate having coatings thereon [para. 0087] 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 Trankiem, 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 10, modified Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises perfluoroperhydrophenanthrene (C14F24) [Chadwick para. 0046-47].
As to claim 14, modified Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the razor blade cutting edge comprises a substrate and no layers of material [claim 1; col. 7, Example, “Blades”] or one or more layers of material disposed between the substrate and the polymer material [Chadwick, para. 0087].
As to claim 15, modified Trankiem discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the one or more layers of material comprise a chromium- containing material, a carbon-containing material, or any combination thereof [Chadwick, para. 0087].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trankiem (US 5645894 A), as applied to claims 1-8, 12-14, and 17 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20100178515 A1).
As to claim 11, Trankiem discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the mechanical process comprises isostatic pressing.
However, Wang, directed to the same field of endeavor teaches forming one or more PTFE coatings on a razor blade by applying a hot isostatic pressing or cold isostatic pressing process, in order to form a thin, dense and uniform coating on the blade edge [Abstract].
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 coating a razor blade, of Trankiem, to include forming an additional PTFE layer on a razor blade by hot isostatic pressing, of Wang, in order to form a razor blade having thin, dense and uniform coating on the blade edge [Abstract].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trankiem (US 5645894 A) in view of Chadwick et al. (US 20180229384 A1), as applied to claims 9-10 and 14-15 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20200368928 A1).
As to claim 16, modified Trankiem discloses the method of claim 15, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the chromium-containing material comprises chromium diboride.
However, Park et al. (US 20200368928 A1) discloses a razor blade having a chromium boride coating and an overlying PTFE coating formed thereon [para. 0047; Table 1], the chromium boride layer comprising various crystal structures including chromium diboride [para. 0054; para. 0060], which produces a blade with improved durability [para. 0047].
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 razor blade having a chromium layer with a polymer layer thereon, of Trankiem (as modified by Chadwick), to include a chromium boride layer, including chromium diboride [para. 0054], with a polymer layer thereon, of Park, in order to form a blade with improved durability, as taught by Park [para. 0047].
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