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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the convex profile (see claims 16 and 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that fig. 9 appears to show the convex profile, however it does not show all the features of claim 1. For example, fig. 9 does not show the ultimate tip being deviated from the central line as recited in claim 1. All features of claims 16 and 17 must be shown in the same embodiment. Further, the coating does not appear to be shown as being formed on the entire portion of the first and second surfaces of the substrate (see claim 22). The only figure which appears to show the entire first and second surfaces of the substrate, fig. 5, does not appear to include the coating. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15-18, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: “wherein a tip angle which is an angle between the first line and a third line tangent to the third facet is” should be amended to read “wherein a tip angle, which is an angle between the first line and a third line tangent to the third facet, is”
Claim 15: at line 2, “being” should be deleted
Claims 16 and 17: it is unclear if the “convex profile” and “convex region” refer to the same feature
Claim 18: “the substrate including: an ultimate tip” should be amended to read “the coating including: an ultimate tip”
Claim 22: it is unclear how the coating can be formed on an “entire portion” of the first surface and the second surface of the substrate – “entire” suggests the whole first and second surfaces, while “portion” suggests only a part of the surfaces
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It appears that there is no mention of the first vertical distance or the second vertical distance in the disclosure as originally filed. Since the claims originally examined (see claim set filed 4/4/2023) did not include these features, it is understood that they constitute new matter, and thus do not comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 18, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the claims require that the substrate be “substantially” symmetrical with respect to the central line. Usage of the term “substantially” is unclear because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised how much deviation is acceptable before the substrate is no longer considered to be symmetrical. For example, would a 5% deviation from being perfectly symmetrical be acceptable? Is any deviation at all acceptable without departing from the intended scope of the claim?
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (US 20120317822) in view of Skrobis (US 20170136640).
Regarding claim 1, Ochiai discloses a razor blade (the cutting tool may include razors; see paragraphs [0018, 0063]) comprising: a substrate including a substrate tip (base member 6 comprises end edge 6c; see fig. 4), a first surface extending in a first direction from the substrate tip (first surface 6a extends in a first direction from end edge 6c; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 4), and a second surface extending in a second direction different from the first direction from the substrate tip (second surface 6b extends in a second direction from end edge 6c; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 4); and a coating, layered on the first surface (coating 7 is formed on base member 6; see paragraphs [0024-0025] and figs. 1-4) the coating comprising: an ultimate tip (cutting edge 5a; see fig. 2); and a first cutting surface (a first cutting surface is formed on first surface 6a; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) wherein the first cutting surface includes a first facet extending from the ultimate tip (the first facet extends from cutting edge 5a; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and a second facet extending from the first facet (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein the second cutting surface includes a third facet extending from the ultimate tip (as modified, a third facet is formed on the second cutting surface; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and corresponding to the first facet and the second facet (the third facet corresponds to the first and second facets; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a first line tangent to the first facet (the first line is tangent to the first facet; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and a second line tangent to the second facet are not parallel (the second line tangent to the second facet is not parallel with the first line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein the ultimate tip is deviated from a central line that divides the substrate in two and passes through the substrate tip (cutting edge 5a is deviated from the central line; see annotated portions of fig. 2 and 4(b) below), a first distance between the central line and a perpendicular line that passes through the ultimate tip and is parallel with the central line (see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below), wherein the substrate is substantially symmetrical with respect to the central line (base member 6 is symmetrical with respect to the central line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), and wherein at least a portion of the second facet and at least a portion of the third facet are positioned on opposite sides to each other with reference to the central line (the second facet and third facet are located on opposite sides of the central line; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ochiai does not explicitly disclose that the coating is layered on the second surface of the substrate.
Skrobis discloses that the coating is layered on the second surface of the substrate (a plurality of coatings are layered on each side of substrate 11; see paragraphs [0061-0066] and figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ochiai in view of Skrobis to include a coating layered on the second surface of the substrate. Skrobis discloses a razor blade that includes a plurality of layers on both the first and second surfaces. Each layer has a different benefit; for example, the interlayer facilitates bonding of the hard coating layer to the substrate (see paragraph [0062]), the hard coating layer provides improved strength and corrosion resistance (see paragraph [0063]), overcoat layer facilitates bonding of the outer layer to the hard coating layer (see paragraph [0065]), and lastly, the outer layer provides reduced friction (see paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these layers provide increased blade strength while providing a comfortable shave for a user. Further, as suggested by Skrobis, providing a layer on each side of the blade ensures high strength and corrosion resistance on both surfaces. Therefore, in order to improve the strength, corrosion resistance, and reduce friction on the entirety of the blade, such a modification would be obvious.
Ochiai as modified discloses a second cutting surface (as modified to include a coating on the second surface, a second cutting surface is formed on second surface 6b) extending from the ultimate tip and corresponding to the first surface and the second surface, respectively (as modified, the first cutting surface corresponds to first surface 6a and the second cutting surface corresponds to second surface 6b, where both extend from the ultimate tip; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the first distance is between 20 nanometers and 300 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the first distance between 20 nanometers and 300 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the first distance “may” be within 20 nanometers to 300 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0064]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein the third facet has a flat profile (see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein the ultimate tip is biased toward the second surface from the central line (cutting edge 5a is angled towards the second surface from the central line; see annotated portion of figs. 2 and 4(b) above).
Regarding claim 4, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that a value obtained by dividing a first thickness by a second thickness is between 0.1 and 2.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the value obtained by dividing the first thickness by the second thickness between 0.1 and 2.5 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the value “may” be between 0.1 and 2.5 (see instant specification paragraph [0062]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a wedge angle, which is an angle between the first line and the second line (see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the wedge angle is between 100 degrees and 160 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the value obtained by dividing the wedge angle be between 100 degrees and 160 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the value “may” be between 100 degrees and 160 degrees (see instant specification paragraph [0037]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a tip angle which is an angle between the first line and a third line tangent to the third facet (see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the tip angle is between 55 degrees and 130 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the value obtained by dividing the tip angle be between 55 degrees and 130 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the value “may” be between 55 degrees and 130 degrees (see instant specification paragraph [0049]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a second distance between the ultimate tip and a first horizontal line that passes through a first point at which the first line and the second line intersect and is perpendicular to the central line (see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the second distance is between 50 nanometers and 400 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the second distance between 50 nanometers and 400 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the second distance “may” be within 50 nanometers to 400 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0066]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a third distance between the substrate tip and the ultimate tip (the third distance extends from end edge 6c to cutting edge 5a; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4(b) above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the third distance is between 100 nanometers and 600 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the third distance between 100 nanometers and 600 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the third distance “may” be within 100 nanometers to 600 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0068]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a fourth distance between the substrate tip and a first point at which the first line and the second line intersect (the fourth distance extends from end edge 6c to the point where the first and second lines intersect; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the fourth distance is between 100 nanometers and 400 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the fourth distance between 100 nanometers and 400 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the fourth distance “may” be within 100 nanometers to 400 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0069]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a fifth distance between the ultimate tip and a first point at which the first line and the second line intersect (the fifth distance extends from cutting edge 5a to the point where the first and second lines intersect; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the fifth distance is between 100 nanometers and 600 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the fifth distance between 100 nanometers and 600 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the fifth distance “may” be within 100 nanometers to 600 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0070]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a value obtained by dividing a tip angle, which is an angle between the first line and a third line tangent to the third facet (see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) above), by a first angle between the second line and the third line (see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the value is between 1.5 and 3.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the value obtained by dividing the tip angle by the first angle between 1.5 and 3.5 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the value “may” be between 1.5 and 3.5 (see instant specification paragraph [0075]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a sixth distance between a first point at which the first line and the second line intersect, and a second point at which a first horizontal line that passes through the first point and is perpendicular to the central line intersects the third facet (the sixth distance extends from the point where the first and second lines intersect to the point where the first horizontal line intersects the third facet; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the sixth distance is between 150 nanometers and 700 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the sixth distance between 150 nanometers and 700 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the sixth distance “may” be within 150 nanometers to 700 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0071]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a seventh distance between a first horizontal line that passes through a first point at which the first line and the second line intersect and is perpendicular to the central line, and a second horizontal line that passes through the substrate tip and is parallel with the first horizontal line (the seventh distance extends from the first horizontal line to the second horizontal line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the seventh distance is between 20 nanometers and 350 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the seventh distance between 20 nanometers and 350 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the seventh distance “may” be within 20 nanometers to 350 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0072]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein a second angle, which is being an angle between a third line being tangent to the third facet and a fourth line being tangent to the second surface (cutting edge angle θ; see fig. 2), is between 10 degrees and 40 degrees (cutting edge angle θ is formed to be 10 degrees to 20 degrees; see paragraph [0036] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein at least a portion of the first cutting surface has a convex profile (the first cutting surface has a convex profile formed by the curvature of the first and second facets; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 16 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein at least a portion of a convex region of the first cutting surface has a radius of curvature (the radius of curvature is formed by the curvature of the first and second facets; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the radius of curvature is between 0.5 micrometers and 1.5 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the radius of curvature between 0.5 micrometers and 1.5 micrometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the seventh distance “may” be between 0.5 micrometers and 1.5 micrometers (see instant specification paragraph [0154]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Ochiai discloses a razor blade (the cutting tool may include razors; see paragraphs [0018, 0063]) comprising: a substrate including a substrate tip (base member 6 comprises end edge 6c; see fig. 4), a first surface extending in a first direction from the substrate tip (first surface 6a extends in a first direction from end edge 6c; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 4), and a second surface extending in a second direction different from the first direction from the substrate tip (second surface 6b extends in a second direction from end edge 6c; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 4); and a coating, layered on the first surface (coating 7 is formed on base member 6; see paragraphs [0024-0025] and figs. 1-4) the coating including: an ultimate tip (cutting edge 5a; see fig. 2), and a first cutting surface (a first cutting surface is formed on first surface 6a; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) wherein the first cutting surface includes a first facet extending from the ultimate tip (the first facet extends from cutting edge 5a; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and a second facet extending from the first facet (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein the second cutting surface includes a third facet extending from the ultimate tip (as modified, a third facet is formed on the second cutting surface; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and corresponding to the first facet and the second facet (the third facet corresponds to the first and second facets; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a first line tangent to the first facet (the first line is tangent to the first facet; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and a second line tangent to the second facet are not parallel (the second line tangent to the second facet is not parallel with the first line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein the third facet has a flat profile (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a central line divides the substrate in two and passes through the substrate tip (the central line divides base member 6 in two and passes through cutting edge 5a; see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below), a first distance between the central line and a perpendicular line that passes through the ultimate tip and is parallel with the central line (see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below), wherein the substrate is substantially symmetrical with respect to the central line (base member 6 is symmetrical with respect to the central line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), and wherein at least a portion of the second facet and at least a portion of the third facet are positioned on opposite sides to each other with reference to the central line (the second facet and third facet are located on opposite sides of the central line; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ochiai does not explicitly disclose that the coating is layered on the second surface of the substrate.
Skrobis discloses that the coating is layered on the second surface of the substrate (a plurality of coatings are layered on each side of substrate 11; see paragraphs [0061-0066] and figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ochiai in view of Skrobis to include a coating layered on the second surface of the substrate. Skrobis discloses a razor blade that includes a plurality of layers on both the first and second surfaces. Each layer has a different benefit; for example, the interlayer facilitates bonding of the hard coating layer to the substrate (see paragraph [0062]), the hard coating layer provides improved strength and corrosion resistance (see paragraph [0063]), overcoat layer facilitates bonding of the outer layer to the hard coating layer (see paragraph [0065]), and lastly, the outer layer provides reduced friction (see paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these layers provide increased blade strength while providing a comfortable shave for a user. Further, as suggested by Skrobis, providing a layer on each side of the blade ensures high strength and corrosion resistance on both surfaces. Therefore, in order to improve the strength, corrosion resistance, and reduce friction on the entirety of the blade, such a modification would be obvious.
Ochiai as modified further discloses a second cutting surface (as modified to include a coating on the second surface, a second cutting surface is formed on second surface 6b) extending from the ultimate tip and corresponding to the first surface and the second surface, respectively (as modified, the first cutting surface corresponds to first surface 6a and the second cutting surface corresponds to second surface 6b, where both extend from the ultimate tip; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4 below).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose that the first distance is between 20 nanometers and 300 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the first distance between 20 nanometers and 300 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the first distance “may” be within 20 nanometers to 300 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0064]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Ochiai discloses a razor blade (the cutting tool may include razors; see paragraphs [0018, 0063]) comprising: a substrate including a substrate tip (base member 6 comprises end edge 6c; see fig. 4), a first surface extending in a first direction from the substrate tip (first surface 6a extends in a first direction from end edge 6c; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 4), and a second surface extending in a second direction different from the first direction from the substrate tip (second surface 6b extends in a second direction from end edge 6c; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 4); and a coating, layered on the first surface (coating 7 is formed on base member 6; see paragraphs [0024-0025] and figs. 1-4) the coating including: an ultimate tip (cutting edge 5a; see fig. 2), and a first cutting surface (a first cutting surface is formed on first surface 6a; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) wherein the first cutting surface includes a first facet extending from the ultimate tip (the first facet extends from cutting edge 5a; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and a second facet extending from the first facet (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein the second cutting surface includes a third facet extending from the ultimate tip (as modified, a third facet is formed on the second cutting surface; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and corresponding to the first facet and the second facet (the third facet corresponds to the first and second facets; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a first line tangent to the first facet (the first line is tangent to the first facet; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) and a second line tangent to the second facet are not parallel (the second line tangent to the second facet is not parallel with the first line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), wherein a third angle between the first line and a central line (see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below) that divides the substrate in two and passes through the substrate tip (the central line divides the substrate in two and passes through end edge 6c; see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below) is different from a fourth angle between a third line tangent to the third facet and the central line (the third angle is larger than the fourth angle; see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below), a first distance between the central line and a perpendicular line that passes through the ultimate tip and is parallel with the central line (see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) below) wherein the substrate is substantially symmetrical with respect to the central line (base member 6 is symmetrical with respect to the central line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), and wherein at least a portion of the second facet and at least a portion of the third facet are positioned on opposite sides to each other with reference to the central line (the second facet and third facet are located on opposite sides of the central line; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
274
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ochiai does not explicitly disclose that the coating is layered on the second surface of the substrate.
Skrobis discloses that the coating is layered on the second surface of the substrate (a plurality of coatings are layered on each side of substrate 11; see paragraphs [0061-0066] and figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ochiai in view of Skrobis to include a coating layered on the second surface of the substrate. Skrobis discloses a razor blade that includes a plurality of layers on both the first and second surfaces. Each layer has a different benefit; for example, the interlayer facilitates bonding of the hard coating layer to the substrate (see paragraph [0062]), the hard coating layer provides improved strength and corrosion resistance (see paragraph [0063]), overcoat layer facilitates bonding of the outer layer to the hard coating layer (see paragraph [0065]), and lastly, the outer layer provides reduced friction (see paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these layers provide increased blade strength while providing a comfortable shave for a user. Further, as suggested by Skrobis, providing a layer on each side of the blade ensures high strength and corrosion resistance on both surfaces. Therefore, in order to improve the strength, corrosion resistance, and reduce friction on the entirety of the blade, such a modification would be obvious.
Ochiai as modified discloses a second cutting surface (as modified to include a coating on the second surface, a second cutting surface is formed on second surface 6b) extending from the ultimate tip and corresponding to the first surface and the second surface, respectively (as modified, the first cutting surface corresponds to first surface 6a and the second cutting surface corresponds to second surface 6b, where both extend from the ultimate tip; see annotated portions of figs. 2 and 4 below).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first distance is between 20 nanometers and 300 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the first distance between 20 nanometers and 300 nanometers since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Ochiai as modified discloses the structure as recited, but lacks the specific dimensions. It appears that further modifying Ochiai to have the above dimensions would not cause it to perform differently. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the recited range, simply indicating that the first distance “may” be within 20 nanometers to 300 nanometers (see instant specification paragraph [0064]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein the central line bisects the substrate in two equal halves (the central line bisects base member 6 into two equal halves; see annotated portion of fig. 4(b) above).
Regarding claim 21, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 20 as described in the rejection above.
Ochiai as modified further discloses wherein the first line and the second line intersect a first point (see annotated portion of fig. 2 above), wherein a first vertical distance is defined between the ultimate tip and a first horizontal line that passes through the first point and is perpendicular to the central line (the first vertical distance extends from cutting edge 5a to the first horizontal line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above), wherein a second vertical distance is defined between the ultimate tip and a second horizontal line that passes through the substrate tip and is parallel with the first horizontal line (the second vertical distance extends from cutting edge 5a to the second horizontal line; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Ochiai as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the second vertical distance is greater than the first vertical distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai to make the second vertical distance greater than the first vertical distance. Ochiai discloses the opposite, where the first vertical distance is greater than the second vertical distance. However, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 22, Ochiai as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Skrobis further discloses wherein the coating is formed on an entire portion of each of the first surface and the second surface of the substrate (each of the coatings is formed on the entirety of both surfaces of substrate 11; see figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ochiai in view of Skrobis to include a coating layered on the entire first and second surfaces of the substrate. Skrobis discloses a razor blade that includes a plurality of layers on both the first and second surfaces. Each layer has a different benefit; for example, the interlayer facilitates bonding of the hard coating layer to the substrate (see paragraph [0062]), the hard coating layer provides improved strength and corrosion resistance (see paragraph [0063]), overcoat layer facilitates bonding of the outer layer to the hard coating layer (see paragraph [0065]), and lastly, the outer layer provides reduced friction (see paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these layers provide increased blade strength while providing a comfortable shave for a user. Further, as suggested by Skrobis, providing a layer on the entirety of the first and second surfaces ensures high strength and corrosion resistance on the whole blade. Therefore, in order to improve the strength, corrosion resistance, and reduce friction on the entirety of the blade, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-22 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights