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 first coating surface extending from the coating tip to a third side (see at least claim 17) and the second coating surface extending from the coating tip to a fourth side opposing the third side (see at least claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 8, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: at line 3, “includes a value” should be amended to read “is”
Claim 10:
at lines 4-5, “the plurality of first columnar structures or second columnar structures” should be amended to read “the plurality of first columnar structures or the plurality of second columnar structures”
at line 5, “at least one of the plurality” should be amended to read “the plurality”
Claim 16: it is not explicitly clear what is intended by a “longitudinal direction” since this direction has not been defined; it is interpreted that the longitudinal direction extends along the Y axis as shown in fig. 2 of the instant application, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 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.
Regarding claims 7, 12, 13, and 17, it is unclear what is intended by the claim limitation “the plurality of columnar structures”. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “the plurality of columnar structures include: a plurality of first columnar structures… a plurality of second columnar structures… and a plurality of third columnar structures”. In the context of claims 7, 12, 13, and 17, it is not clear if a specific plurality of columnar structures is being referred to, or if the claim requires any one of the pluralities of columnar structures, or all of the pluralities of columnar structures. Examiner recommends amending these claims to clearly distinguish which plurality is being claimed.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 20, it is unclear how the “height” of the plurality of columnar structures is defined. Regarding the pluralities of first and second columnar structures, it is presumed that the height is measured from the first/second surface to the opposite end of the respective plurality of columnar structures. Regarding the plurality of third columnar structures, it is presumed that the height is measured from the substrate tip to the opposite ends of the plurality of third columnar structures. Examiner recommends amending these claims to clearly define how the height is measured.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, it is unclear what is intended by the claim limitation “about”. Specifically, if the virtual line is spaced “about” 100 nanometers from the coating tip, it is unclear how to define the angle. In other words, the angle is dependent on the position of the virtual line. If the virtual line may deviate an indeterminate amount from the coating tip, it is no longer clear how the angle is defined. Examiner recommends deletion of the term “about”.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear what is intended by the claim limitation “upward”. It appears the term “upward” is dependent upon an indefinite unclaimed orientation. The tool is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations, including ones that do not correspond with these terms. Terms that are true regardless of orientation must be utilized.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what the “third side” and “fourth side” are. As noted above, these structures are not clearly indicated in the drawings. Since these structures are not clearly defined, it is unclear what is intended by “a first coating surface extending from the coating tip to a third side” and “a second coating surface extending from the coating tip to a fourth side opposing the third side”. Examiner recommends amending the drawings to clearly show these features (without introducing new matter) or deleting limitations related to the third and fourth sides from the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what is intended by the claim limitation “the plurality of third columnar structures have different heights”. Does this limitation require the third columnar structures to have different heights from one another? Or from a different plurality of columnar structures? It is presumed to be intended that the third columnar structures have different heights relative to one another and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
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, 7-13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuaki (JP 5850393) in view of Siozios (US 20170136641).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuaki discloses a blade comprising: a substrate including a substrate tip (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), a first surface extending from the substrate tip to a first side (the first surface extends from the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), and a second surface extending from the substrate tip to a second side opposing the first side (the second surface extends from the substrate tip opposite to the first surface; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below); and a metal coating layer formed on the first surface, the second surface, and the substrate tip (a coating formed from (Al,Cr)N is located on the substrate; see paragraph [0011] and annotated portion of fig. 3 below), wherein the metal coating layer includes a coating tip formed on the substrate tip (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) and a plurality of columnar structures extending outwardly from the first surface, the second surface, and the substrate tip (the (Al,Cr)N layer comprises a plurality of columnar structures; see paragraph [0010] and annotated portion of fig. 3 below), wherein the plurality of columnar structures include: a plurality of first columnar structures formed on the first surface, each first columnar structure being oriented such that its angle with respect to the first surface decreases as a distance to the substrate tip decreases and each first columnar structure curves toward the coating tip (the plurality of first columnar structures is formed on the first surface and angled towards the coating tip such that the angle decreases; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), a plurality of second columnar structures formed on the second surface, each second columnar structure being oriented such that its angle with respect to the second surface decreases as a distance to the substrate tip decreases and each second columnar structure curves toward the coating tip (the plurality of second columnar structures is formed on the second surface and angled toward the coating tip such that the angle decreases; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), and a plurality of third columnar structures formed on the substrate tip and radially arranged around the substrate tip (a plurality of third columnar structures is radially arranged at the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kazuaki does not explicitly disclose that the blade is a razor blade.
Siozios discloses a razor blade (razor blade 1; see fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kazuaki in view of Siozios to make the blade suitable for use as a razor blade. Siozios discloses that razor blades are typically produced with a coating to provide enhanced strength and increased life (see paragraph [0007] of Siozios). As discussed above, Kazuaki discloses a coated blade which has a controlled microstructure. Controlling the crystal growth direction of the coating further suppresses chipping and wear, particularly during initial cutting stages (see paragraph [0009]). Thus, the result is a longer lasting blade. Though Kazuaki is from a different field of endeavor, the benefits it provides would still be applicable if the blade were to be used in a razor cartridge. Therefore, since Siozios teaches the need for coated razor blades with sufficient wear resistance, it would be obvious to configure the blade of Kazuaki to be used as a razor blade in order to provide these benefits.
Regarding claim 7, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of columnar structures are formed within 300 nanometers from the coating tip (the plurality of third columnar structures forms the coating tip and is thus within 300 nanometers; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 8, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip includes a value between 20 nanometers and 550 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip between 20 nanometers and 550 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)). In the instant case, the device of Kazuaki would not operate differently if modified to have these dimensions. In other words, Kazuaki as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting action. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the distance between the substrate tip and coating tip has a value between 20 and 550 nanometers; however, no reasoning appears to be provided to distinguish why this range is critical to the invention (see paragraph [0067] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 9, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of first columnar structures and the plurality of second columnar structures have a height of 100 nanometers or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the height of the first and second columnar structures 100 nanometers or less 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)). In the instant case, the device of Kazuaki would not operate differently if modified to have these dimensions. In other words, Kazuaki as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting action. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the height “may” be about 100 nanometers or less (see paragraph [0068] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 10, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of first columnar structures or the second columnar structures have a height of 100 nanometers or less, and at least one of the plurality of third columnar structures has a height of more than 100 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the height of the first and second columnar structures 100 nanometers or less and the height of the third columnar structures more than 100 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)). In the instant case, the device of Kazuaki would not operate differently if modified to have these dimensions. In other words, Kazuaki as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting action. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the height of the first and second columnar structures “may” be about 100 nanometers or less, and the height of the third columnar structures “may” be greater than about 100 nanometers (see paragraph [0068] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 11, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein a ratio of a thickness of the metal coating layer formed on the first surface and the second surface to a thickness of the metal coating layer between the substrate tip and the coating tip ranges from 1: 1 to 1: 0.3 (the (Al,Cr)N layer appears to be formed evenly around the substrate such that a ratio of thickness between the first and second surfaces to the thickness between the substrate and coating tips is 1:1; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 12, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of columnar structures are formed at an angle of 5 degrees to 90 degrees with respect to the first surface and the second surface (the angle of the columnar structure on one side of the substrate is 18 ± 5° and the angle of the columnar structure on the other side is 30 ± 5°; see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 13, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein the metal coating layer includes a first coating surface extending from the coating tip to one side (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above), and a second coating surface extending from the coating tip to the other side (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle is defined between: i) a point located on an extension direction of at least one of the plurality of columnar structures at a point where a virtual line spaced about 100 nanometers apart from the coating tip intersects any one of the first coating surface or the second coating surface, and ii) an extension direction of the first surface, and wherein the angle is 50 degrees to 80 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the angle between 50 degrees to 80 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)). In the instant case, the device of Kazuaki would not perform differently if modified to have the recited range. In other words, Kazuaki as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting action. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the angle has a range between 50 degrees and 80 degrees; however, no reasoning appears to be provided to distinguish why this range is critical to the invention (see paragraph [0072] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 16, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Siozios further discloses a razor cartridge comprising: one or more blades, each blade comprising the razor blade of claim 1 and including an edge portion and a cutting edge formed at a tip of the edge portion (each blade substrate 10 includes cutting edge portion 11, which meets blade tip 14; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 1); and a blade housing configured to accommodate the one or more blades in a longitudinal direction such that at least a portion of the cutting edge is exposed upward (razor cartridge 105 is configured to support a plurality of razor blades 1; see paragraph [0102] and fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki in view of Siozios to include a razor cartridge for supporting the blades. As modified, Kazuaki discloses a blade which can be used as a razor. Siozios discloses a razor cartridge which is capable of supporting a plurality of blades for shaving (razor cartridge 105; see fig. 16). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a cartridge can be used to support multiple blades at once, thus improving the quality of a shave for a user. Therefore, in order to improve shave quality by providing means to support multiple blades, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 16 as described in the rejection above.
Siozios further discloses wherein the plurality of first columnar structures are configured to face a skin surface during shaving (as modified, the first columnar structures are capable of facing a user’s skin during a shaving operation), wherein the metal coating layer includes a first coating surface extending from the coating tip to a third side (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), and a second coating surface extending from the coating tip to a fourth side opposing the third side (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
677
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle is defined between: i) a point located on an extension direction of at least one of the plurality of columnar structures at a point where a virtual line spaced about 100 nanometers apart from the coating tip intersects any one of the first coating surface or the second coating surface, and ii) the skin surface, and wherein the angle is 35 degrees to 110 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the angle between 35 degrees to 110 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)). In the instant case, the device of Kazuaki would not perform differently if modified to have the recited range. In other words, Kazuaki as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting action. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the angle has a range between 35 degrees and 110 degrees; however, no reasoning appears to be provided to distinguish why this range is critical to the invention (see paragraph [0073] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 18, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of first columnar structures have a shape bent toward the substrate tip as a distance from the first surface increases compared to a shape of the plurality of first columnar structures as the distance from the first surface decreases, such that a curvature of the plurality of first columnar structures increases as the distance from the first surface increases (at least a portion of the first columnar structures are angled such that as the distance from the first surface increases, the first columnar shapes are angled towards the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of second columnar structures have a shape bent toward the substrate tip as a distance from the second surface increases compared to a shape of the plurality of second columnar structures as the distance from the second surface decreases, such that a curvature of the plurality of second columnar structures increases as the distance from the second surface increases (at least a portion of the second columnar structures are angled such that as the distance from the second surface increases, the second columnar shapes are angled towards the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 20, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of third columnar structures have different heights (the heights of the plurality of third columnar structures are varied; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 21, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified further discloses wherein extension directions of the plurality of first columnar-structures and the plurality of second columnar structures converge toward the coating tip (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuaki (JP 5850393) in view of Siozios (US 20170136641), and further in view of Bache (US 4933058).
Regarding claim 14, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal coating layer includes at least one of CrB, CrC, or CrCB based on Cr.
Bache discloses the use of chromium in a razor blade coating (see col. 5, lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the metal coating layer include at least one of CrB, CrC, or CrCB since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Kazuaki discloses the use of Cr in the coating (see paragraph [0012]. Bache discloses the inclusion of chromium in an interlayer of a substrate to improve adhesion of the coating to the substrate (see col. 5, lines 42-59). Therefore, in order to improve adhesion of the coating to the substrate, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Kazuaki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kazuaki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal coating layer includes any one of TiC, TiB, TiCB, TiAlC, or TiSiC based on Ti.
Bache discloses the use of titanium in a razor blade coating (see col. 5, lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kazuaki to make the metal coating layer include at least one of TiC, TiB, TiCB, TiAlC, or TiSiC since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Bache discloses the inclusion of titanium in an interlayer of a substrate to improve adhesion of the coating to the substrate (see col. 5, lines 42-59). Therefore, in order to improve adhesion of the coating to the substrate, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7-21 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20150328789 to Skrobis, drawn to a razor blade.
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