DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 26th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the claims previously
set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 14th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Kenneth James Skrobis et al. (US 11794366 B2– hereinafter Skrobis) in view of
Hiroyuki Ochiai et al. (US 20120317822 A1) and Jeffrey A. Percival (WO 2021011719 A1 –
hereinafter Percival).
Regarding claim 1, Skrobis teaches a razor cartridge comprising: at least one blade (Fig.
14, Razor Blade 18) comprising an edge portion (Fig. 4, Tip Portion 34) and a cutting edge (Fig.
14, edge defined by topmost tip formed by Coatings 76 and 78) formed at a tip (Fig. 3, Tip 40) of
the edge portion; and a blade housing (Fig. 1, Cartridge Housing 16) configured to receive the at
least one blade in a longitudinal direction so that at least a portion of the cutting edge is exposed
upwardly, wherein the at least one blade comprises: a substantially symmetrical substrate (Fig.
14, Substrate 28) comprising a substrate tip (Fig. 14, Tip 40), a first surface (Fig. 14, portion of
Outer Surface 28A that is to the left of Tip 40) extending toward a first side (Fig. 14, right side of the substrate) from the substrate tip, a second surface (Fig. 14, portion of Outer Surface 28A that is to the right of Tip 40) extending toward a second side (Fig. 14, left side of the substrate) opposite to the first side from the substrate tip, a third surface extending from the first surface at an angle (Fig. 14, portion of Outer Surface 28A that is to the left of Tip 40, starting at the first angle to the left of Tip 40), and a fourth surface extending from the second surface at an angle (Fig. 14, portion of Outer Surface 28A that is to the right of Tip 40, starting at the first angle to the right of Tip 40); and a coating layer (Fig. 14, First and Second Coating 76 and 78) formed on the first surface, the second surface, the third surface and the fourth surface of the substantially symmetrical substrate and configured to form the cutting edge, the coating layer comprising: a first facet (Fig. 14, the side of First Coating 76 immediately to the left of Tip 40) extending from a final tip of the coating layer (Fig. 14, tip of the coating above Tip 40 formed by coatings 76 and 78) forming a tip of the cutting edge, and the first facet configured to face a skin surface during shaving (Fig. 14, the first facet is on outer side 48, which is a skin-contacting and therefore skin facing surface); and a second facet (Fig. 14, the side of Second Coating 78 immediately to the right of Tip 40) extending along the second side from the final tip of the coating layer on the second side at an angle with respect to the first facet, a third facet extending from a lower end of the first facet on the first side and at an angle with respect to the first facer (Fig. 14, the outer side of Coating 76 that is connected to and is immediately below the first facet), a fourth facet extending from a lower end of the second facet on the second side and at an
angle with respect to the second facet (Fig. 14, the outer side of coating 76 that is connected to and immediately below the second facet), and a fifth facet extending from a lower end of the third facet on the first side and at an angle with respect to the third facet (Fig. 14, the outer side
of Coating 76 that is connected to and is immediately below the first facet), wherein a blade
angle between the skin surface and a line passing through a bisecting plane of the substantially
symmetrical substrate is greater than an efficient angle between the skin surface and a line
passing through a bisecting plane of the final tip of the coating layer (Fig. 14, First Outer Side 48
is a skin contacting surface [Col 3, lines 53-54]. Since the Coating 76 on that side is thicker [Col
17, lines 36-39], the efficient angle from the final tip defined by the coating will be less than the
blade angle), wherein the bisecting plane of the final tip of the coating layer and the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate are not parallel (Fig. 14, the substrate is symmetrical while the coating is raised on the left side of the substrate, and therefore the bisecting plane of the coating layer would be skewed left and at an angle when compared to the completely vertical bisecting plane of the substrate).
Skrobis does not teach wherein the substrate tip is laterally offset from the final tip of the
coating layer in a direction perpendicular to the line passing through the bisecting plane of the
substantially symmetrical substrate, wherein the line passing through the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate extends through the first facet of the coating layer, which faces the skin surface, and wherein the efficient angle is less than 10 degrees. Skrobis additionally does not teach that the first facet extends from the final tip on the second side to the first side while passing over the substrate tip, or wherein a first portion of the first facet disposed on the first side and a second portion of the second facet disposed on the second side are asymmetric about the line passing through the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate.
However, Ochiai teaches a cutting tool with a substrate tip (Fig. 5, tip of Base Member 6)
that is laterally offset from the final tip of the coating (Fig. 5, tip of Coating 7) in a direction
(Fig. 5, horizontal direction as shown in Fig. 5) perpendicular to the line passing through the
bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate (Fig. 5, vertical line passing through the tip of Base Member 6). Implementing this offset in Skrobis would result in the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate (Fig. 14, Substrate 28) of Skrobis to pass through the first facet of the coating layer, which faces the skin surface. This combination would additionally result in the first facet extending from a final tip on one of the second or first side to the other of the second or first side while passing over the substrate tip because the substrate tip is offset from the final tip, and the first facet of Skrobis extends from the final tip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Skrobis and Ochiai such that the first facet extends from the second side to the first side as it requires only a change in the shape/form of the coating, and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. This would naturally lead to a first portion of the first facet being disposed on the first side and a second portion of the second facet being disposed on the second side, the first and second portion being asymmetric about the line passing through the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate since Skrobis already teaches the first facet travelling downwards from the tip, which would create an asymmetric first and second portion about the midline of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Skrobis to include the features of claim 1 above
as taught by Ochiai as it requires only a change in the shape/form of the coating, and a change in
form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent
any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally, Percival teaches a razor blade (Fig. 3, Razor Blade 10) with an efficient
angle of 15 degrees (Fig. 3, half of the Second Included Angle 62 can be as low as 10 degrees
(page 6, para 2). When added to Angle 144, which can be as low as 5 degrees (page 14, para 5),
of Fig. 13, the efficient angle is 15 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Second Included Angle 62 and Angle 144 of Percival such that
the sum of the two creates an efficient angle of less than 10 degrees as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Angle
144 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to be steep for
enabling improved passage of the shaved hair (Percival; page 14, para 5). Likewise, Second
Included Angle 62 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to
mitigate breakage and enhance the life of the blade (Percival; page 6, para 2). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the
efficient angle of Skrobis to be less than 10 degrees as taught by Percival.
Regarding claim 5, Skrobis further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the
final tip (Fig. 14, topmost tip formed by coatings 76 and 78) is configured to be spaced apart
from the skin surface during shaving (Fig. 14, First Outer Side 48 is a skin contacting surface
[Col 3, lines 53-54]. When the lower portion of 48 contacts the skin, the final tip would be
spaced apart from the skin).
Regarding claim 6, Skrobis further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the
first facet is formed within 1 micrometer away from the final tip (Fig. Fig. 14, topmost tip
formed by coatings 76 and 78; the first facet begins at the final tip, so therefore it is formed at
least partially within 1 micrometer away from the final tip).
Regarding claim 7, Skrobis further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the
second facet is formed within 50 micrometer away from the final tip (Fig. Fig. 14, topmost tip
formed by coatings 76 and 78; the second facet begins at the final tip, so therefore it is formed at
least partially within 50 micrometer away from the final tip).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to
teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein an angle between the first facet and the second facet
is in a range of 50 degrees to 75 degrees.
However, Percival additionally teaches a razor blade wherein an angle between the first
and second facet is in a range of about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees (Fig. 3, Second Included
Angle 62; page 6, para 2, examiner interprets that “about” 70 degrees includes up to 75 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle between the first facet and the second facet of the
combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival to be in a range of 50 degrees and 75 degrees as
taught by Percival. Doing so provides the benefit of mitigating breakage and enhancing the life
of the blade (Percival; page 6, para 2).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to
teach that an angle between an extension line of the second facet and an extension line of the
third facet is in a range of 25 degrees to 50 degrees.
However, Percival additionally teaches an angle (Fig. 3, First Included Angle 60)
between an extension line of the second facet (Fig. 3, First Surface 20) and an extension line of
the third facet (Fig. 3, Beveled Surface 28) is in a range of about 25 degrees to about 40 degrees
(page 6, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the First Included Angle of Percival to be in a range of 25 degrees
to 50 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). The First Included Angle 60 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it
needs to be optimized to mitigate breakage and enhance the life of the blade (Percival; page 6,
para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle between an extension line of the second facet and an
extension line of the third facet of the combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival to be in a
range of 25 degrees to 50 degrees as taught by Percival.
Regarding claim 15, Skrobis further teaches the razor cartridge of Claim 1, wherein the
blade angle is configured to be greater than the efficient angle when the final tip is positioned on
the skin surface and as the final tip moves from a first position to a second position during
shaving, wherein, in the first position, the final tip and the cutting edge are positioned on the skin
surface, and wherein, in the second position, the final tip is spaced apart from the skin surface
(Fig. 14, First Outer Side 48 is a skin contacting surface [Col 3, lines 53-54]. Since the Coating
76 on that side is thicker [Col 17, lines 36-39], the efficient angle from the final tip defined by
the coating will be less than the blade angle defined from the bisecting line of the substrate in a
position where the final tip and the cutting edge are positioned on the skin surface, and a position
where the final tip has been slightly raised from the aforementioned position).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kenneth James Skrobis et al. (US 11794366 B2– hereinafter Skrobis) in view of Hiroyuki
Ochiai et al. (US 20120317822 A1) and Jeffrey A. Percival (WO 2021011719 A1 –
hereinafter Percival) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peter Gluche et al.
(EP 3895861 A1– hereinafter Gluche).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to
teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the blade angle (BA) is 22 degrees or less.
However, Gluche teaches a razor with a blade angle (Fig. 6a, Effective Cutting Angle ε;
[0066]) of greater than or equal to 10 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Effective Cutting Angle ε of Gluche to be 22 degrees or less as
a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955). The Effective Cutting Angle ε is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to
be optimized to improve the efficiency of the hairs being cut (Gluche, [0066]). Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the blade angle of the combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival to be 22 degrees or
less as taught by Gluche.
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to
teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the blade angle (BA) is 17 degrees or less.
However, Gluche teaches a razor with a blade angle (Fig. 6a, Effective Cutting Angle ε,
[0066]) of greater than or equal to 10 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Effective Cutting Angle ε of Gluche to be 17 degrees or less as
a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955). The Effective Cutting Angle ε is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to
be optimized to improve the efficiency of the hairs being cut (Gluche, [0066]). Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the blade angle of the combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival to be 17 degrees or
less as taught by Gluche.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneth James
Skrobis et al. (US 11794366 B2– hereinafter Skrobis) in view of Hiroyuki Ochiai et al. (US
20120317822 A1) and Jeffrey A. Percival (WO 2021011719 A1 – hereinafter Percival) as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ming Laura Xu et al. (US 11230025 B2–
hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to
teach that the third facet is formed within 50 micrometers away from the final tip.
However, Xu teaches wherein the third facet (Fig. 3, Facet 45) is formed within 50
micrometers away (Fig. 3, distance 42a can be as short as 12 micrometers. Since the third facet
begins at the end of distance 42a, the third facet is at least partially formed within 50
micrometers away from the final tip; Col 6, lines 38-40) from the final tip (Fig. 3, Blade Tip 41).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the third facet of the combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival
such that it is formed within 50 micrometers away from the final tip as taught by Xu as a matter
of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see
MPEP 2143). In this case, the predictable result is the third facet being within 50 micrometers of
the final tip.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneth James
Skrobis et al. (US 11794366 B2– hereinafter Skrobis) in view of Hiroyuki Ochiai et al. (US
20120317822 A1) and Jeffrey A. Percival (WO 2021011719 A1 – hereinafter Percival) as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeffrey S. Parker et al. (US 10549438 B2–
hereinafter Parker).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to
teach that an angle between the first facet and the third facet is in a range of 120 degrees to 165
degrees.
However, Parker teaches an angle (Fig. 2, the supplement of Wedge Angle β) between
the first facet (Fig. 2, First Facet 14) and the third facet (Fig. 2, Second Facet 18) in the range of
150 degrees to 175 degrees (Col 4, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle between the first facet and the third facet of Parker to be
in the range of 120 degrees to 165 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been
held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive
to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The angle between the first facet and the third facet
is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to balance low cutting
force and increased safety (Parker; Col 1, lines 46-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify angle between the first
facet and the third facet of the combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival to be in the range of
120 degrees to 165 degrees as taught by Parker.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kenneth James Skrobis et al. (US 11794366 B2– hereinafter Skrobis) in view of Hiroyuki
Ochiai et al. (US 20120317822 A1) and Jeffrey A. Percival (WO 2021011719 A1 –
hereinafter Percival) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyun Ju
Lee et al. (US 20210094199 A1– hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Skrobis teaches a point where the third facet and the fifth facet
cross each other is defined as a first intersection point P (Fig. 4, First Junction 39 -1), a point
where a parallel line to the skin surface and passing through the first intersection point P and a
line A2 passing through the bisecting plane of the final tip cross each other is defined as a second
intersection point T (while not shown in the figures, the blade geometry is such that a line A2
passing through the bisecting plane of the final tip can be defined, and when placed against a
skin surface a parallel line thereto and passing through point P can also be defined, and the two
would intersect at a second intersection point T, as shown in modified Fig. 4 below. It can be
seen that point T resides between the final tip of the blade and point P when measured in the
vertical direction. Therefore, the distance between point P and point T in the vertical direction
must be equal to or less than the distance between the final tip and point P).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to teach that a distance
between the first intersection point P (Skrobis - Fig. 1, intersection of the third and fifth facets at
the point P defined at distance D16) and the second intersection point T is in a range of 1
micrometer to 5 micrometers.
However, Lee teaches that a distance (examiner interprets that the distance is measured in
a vertical direction from the tip, similar to the distances discussed in the rejection of claims 6, 7,
and 11) between first intersection point P (Fig. 1, where point P is at distance D16 on side 14)
and the tip is 16 micrometers (Fig. 1, distance D16).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date to modify the distance D16 of Lee to be 5 micrometers as a matter of routine optimization
since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The distance D16 is disclosed to be
a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to reduce the cutting force (Lee, [0028]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the distance between the final tip and point P of the existing combination of
Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival to be 5 micrometers at taught by Lee. When this distance is 5
micrometers the distance between point P and T in Skrobis is 5 micrometers or less, which
anticipates the claimed range of 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers, as the claimed subject matter is
disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the
statute." ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
Regarding claim 13, Skrobis teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein: the blade
further comprises a third facet (Fig. 14, the outer side of Coating 76 that is connected to and is
immediately below the first facet) extending from the first facet and a fifth facet (Fig. 14, the
outer side of Coating 76 that is connected to and is immediately below the third facet) extending
from the third facet, a point where the third facet and the fifth facet cross each other is defined as
a first intersection point P (Fig. 4, First Junction 39-1), a point where a parallel line to the skin
surface and passing through the first intersection point P and a line A2 passing through the
bisecting plane of the final tip cross each other is defined as a second intersection point T (while
not shown in the figures, the blade geometry is such that a line A2 passing through the bisecting
plane of the final tip can be defined, and when placed against a skin surface a parallel line thereto
and passing through point P can also be defined, and the two would intersect at a second
intersection point T, as shown in modified Fig. 4 below. It can be seen that point T resides
between the final tip of the blade and point P when measured in the vertical direction. Therefore,
the distance between point P and point T in the vertical direction must be equal to or less than the
distance between the final tip and point P).
PNG
media_image2.png
586
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The existing combination of Skrobis, Ochiai, and Percival fails to teach that a distance
between the first intersection point P (Fig. 1, intersection of the third and fifth facets at the point
P defined at distance D16) and the second intersection point T is in a range of 2 micrometers to 7
micrometers.
However, Lee teaches that a distance (examiner interprets that the distance is measured in
a vertical direction from the tip, similar to the distances discussed in the rejection of claims 6, 7,
and 11) between first intersection point P (Fig. 1, where point P is at distance D16 on side 14)
and the tip is 16 micrometers (Fig. 1, distance D16).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date to modify the distance D16 of Lee to be 7 micrometers as a matter of routine optimization
since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The distance D16 is disclosed to be
a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to reduce the cutting force (Lee, [0028]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the distance between the final tip and point P of the existing combination of Skrobis,
Ochiai, and Percival to be 7 micrometers at taught by Lee. When this distance is 7 micrometers
the distance between point P and T in Skrobis is 7 micrometers or less, which anticipates the
claimed range of 2 micrometers to 7 micrometers, as the claimed subject matter is disclosed in
the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute."
ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir.
2012).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneth James
Skrobis et al. (US 11794366 B2– hereinafter Skrobis) in view of Jeffrey A. Percival (WO
2021011719 A1 – hereinafter Percival), Jeffrey S. Parker et al. (US 10549438 B2–
hereinafter Parker), and Hiroyuki Ochiai et al. (US 20120317822 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Skrobis teaches a razor cartridge comprising: at least one blade
(Fig. 14, Razor Blade 18) comprising an edge portion (Fig. 4, Tip Portion 34) and a cutting edge
(Fig. 14, edge defined by topmost tip formed by Coatings 76 and 78) formed at a tip (Fig. 3, Tip
40) of the edge portion; and a blade housing (Fig. 1, Cartridge Housing 16) configured to receive
the at least one blade in a longitudinal direction so that at least a portion of the cutting edge is
exposed upwardly, wherein the at least one blade comprises: a symmetrical substrate (Fig. 14, Substrate 28) comprising a substrate tip (Fig. 14, Tip 40), a first surface (Fig. 14, portion of Outer Surface 28A that is to the left of Tip 40) extending toward a first side from the substrate tip, and a second surface (Fig. 14, portion of Outer Surface 28A that is to the right of Tip 40) extending toward a second side opposite the first side from the substrate tip; and a coating layer (Fig. 14, First and Second Coating 76 and 78) formed on the first surface and the second surface of the symmetrical substrate and configured to form the cutting edge, the coating layer comprising: a first facet (Fig. 14, the side of First Coating 76 immediately to the left of Tip 40)
extending from a final tip (Fig. 14, edge defined by the tip formed by coatings 76 and 78) forming a tip of the cutting edge, and the first facet configured to face a skin surface during shaving (Fig. 14, the first facet is on outer side 48, which is a skin-contacting and therefore skin facing surface); and a second facet extending along the second side from the final tip of the coating layer on the second side and at an angle with respect to the first facet (Fig. 14, the side of Second Coating 78 immediately to the right of Tip 40), and a third facet extending from a lower end of the first facet on the first side and at an angle with respect to the first facet (Fig. 14, the outer side of Coating 76 that is connected to and is immediately below the first facet), wherein the bisecting plane of the final tip of the coating layer and the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate are not parallel (Fig. 14, the substrate is symmetrical while the coating is raised on the left side of the substrate, and therefore the bisecting plane of the coating layer would be skewed left and at an angle when compared to the completely vertical bisecting plane of the substrate).
Skrobis fails to teach wherein an efficient angle (8) between the skin surface and a line
passing through a bisecting plane of the final tip is less than 10 degrees. Skrobis also fails to
teach wherein an angle between the first facet and the second facet is in a range of 50 degrees to
75 degrees, wherein an angle between the first facet and the third facet is in a range of 120
degrees to 165 degrees, and wherein an angle between an extension line of the second facet and
an extension line of the third facet is in a range of 25 degrees to 50 degrees.
However, Percival teaches a razor blade (Fig. 3, Razor Blade 10) with an efficient angle
of 15 degrees (Fig. 3, half of the Second Included Angle 62 can be as low as 10 degrees
(page 6, para 2). When added to Angle 144, which can be as low as 5 degrees (page 14, para 5),
of Fig. 13, the efficient angle is 15 degrees), wherein an angle between the first and second facet
is in a range of about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees (Fig. 3, Second Included Angle 62; page 6,
para 2, examiner interprets that “about” 70 degrees includes up to 75 degrees), and wherein an
angle (Fig. 3, First Included Angle 60) between an extension line of the second facet (Fig. 3,
First Surface 20) and an extension line of the third facet (Fig. 3, Beveled Surface 28) is in a
range of about 25 degrees to about 40 degrees (page 6, Para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Second Included Angle 62 and Angle 144 of Percival such that
the sum of the two creates an efficient angle of less than 10 degrees as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Angle
144 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to be steep for
enabling improved passage of the shaved hair (Percival; page 14, para 2). Likewise, Second
Included Angle 62 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to
mitigate breakage and enhance the life of the blade (Percival; page 6, para 2). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the
efficient angle of Skrobis to be less than 10 degrees as taught by Percival. With regards to the
angle between the first and second facet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle between the first facet and the second
facet of Skrobis to be in a range of 50 degrees and 75 degrees as taught by Percival. Doing so
provides the benefit of mitigating breakage and enhancing the life of the blade (Percival; page 6,
para 2). With regards to the angle between an extension line of the second facet and an extension
line of the third facet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the First Included Angle of Percival to be in a range of 25 degrees
to 50 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). The First Included Angle 60 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it
needs to be optimized to mitigate breakage and enhance the life of the blade (Percival; page 6,
para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle between an extension line of the second facet and an
extension line of the third facet of Skrobis to be in a range of 25 degrees to 50 degrees as taught
by Percival.
Additionally, Parker teaches an angle (Fig. 2, the supplement of Wedge Angle β) between
the first facet (Fig. 2, First Facet 14) and the third facet (Fig. 2, Second Facet 18) in the range of
150 degrees to 175 degrees (Col 4, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the angle between the first facet and the third facet of Parker to be
in the range of 120 degrees to 165 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been
held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive
to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The angle between the first facet and the third facet
is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to balance low cutting
force and increased safety (Parker; Col 1, lines 46-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify angle between the first
facet and the third facet of Skrobis to be in the range of 120 degrees to 165 degrees as taught by
Parker.
Skrobis additionally does not teach wherein the substrate tip is laterally offset from the
final tip of the coating layer in a direction perpendicular to the line passing through the bisecting
plane of the symmetrical substrate, wherein the line passing through the bisecting plane of the
symmetrical substrate extends through the first facet of the coating layer, which faces the skin
surface, wherein the efficient angle is less than 10 degrees, the first facet extends from the final tip on the second side to the first side while passing over the substrate tip, or wherein a first portion of the first facet disposed on the first side and a second portion of the second facet disposed on the second side are asymmetric about the line passing through the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate.
However, Ochiai teaches a cutting tool with a substrate tip (Fig. 5, tip of Base Member 6)
that is laterally offset from the final tip of the coating (Fig. 5, tip of Coating 7) in a direction
(Fig. 5, horizontal direction as shown in Fig. 5) perpendicular to the line passing through the
bisecting plane of the symmetrical substrate (Fig. 5, vertical line passing through the tip of Base
Member 6). Implementing this offset in Skrobis would result in the bisecting plane of the
symmetrical substrate (Fig. 14, Substrate 28) of Skrobis to pass through the first facet of the
coating layer, which faces the skin surface. This combination would additionally result in the first facet extending from a final tip on one of the second or first side to the other of the second or first side while passing over the substrate tip because the substrate tip is offset from the final tip, and the first facet of Skrobis extends from the final tip. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Skrobis and Ochiai such that the first facet extends from the second side to the first side as it requires only a change in the shape/form of the coating, and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. This would naturally lead to a first portion of the first facet being disposed on the first side and a second portion of the second facet being disposed on the second side, the first and second portion being asymmetric about the line passing through the bisecting plane of the substantially symmetrical substrate since Skrobis already teaches the first facet travelling downwards from the tip, which would create an asymmetric first and second portion about the midline of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Skrobis to include the features of claim 1 above
as taught by Ochiai as it requires only a change in the shape/form of the coating, and a change in
form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent
any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally, Percival teaches a razor blade (Fig. 3, Razor Blade 10) with an efficient
angle of 15 degrees (Fig. 3, half of the Second Included Angle 62 can be as low as 10 degrees
(page 6, para 2). When added to Angle 144, which can be as low as 5 degrees (page 14, para 5),
of Fig. 13, the efficient angle is 15 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Second Included Angle 62 and Angle 144 of Percival such that
the sum of the two creates an efficient angle of less than 10 degrees as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Angle
144 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to be steep for
enabling improved passage of the shaved hair (Percival; page 14, para 5). Likewise, Second
Included Angle 62 is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to
mitigate breakage and enhance the life of the blade (Percival; page 6, para 2). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the
efficient angle of Skrobis to be less than 10 degrees as taught by Percival.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights