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
Applicant’s submission filed on September 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 13, and 16-17 were amended. Claim 18-20 were newly introduced. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 17, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-20 are examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 is objected to because of “located at the point” in line 7. This should be corrected to “located at a
Claim 13 is further objected to because of “where a virtual line space about 100 nanometers away” in lines 7-8. This should be corrected to “where a virtual line spaced about 100 nanometers away.”
Claim 13 is further objected to because of “an angle between an extension direction of the plurality of columnar structures located at the point where a virtual line space about 100 nanometers apart from the coating tip intersects” in lines 6-8. The wording of this limitation is confusing, as a direction cannot be located at a singular point. Examiner suggests “an angle between a point located on an extension direction of the plurality of columnar structures
Claim 16 is objected to because of “the plurality of columnar structures include a plurality first columnar structure” in lines 15-16. This should be corrected to “the plurality of columnar structures include a plurality of first columnar structures.”
Claim 17 is objected to because of “where a virtual line space about 100 nanometers away” in lines 8-9. This should be corrected to “where a virtual line spaced about 100 nanometers away.”
Claim 17 is further objected to because of “an angle between an extension direction of the plurality of columnar structures located at a point where a virtual line space about 100 nanometers apart from the coating tip intersects” in lines 7-9. The wording of this limitation is confusing, as a direction cannot be located at a singular point. Examiner suggests “an angle between a point located on an extension direction of the plurality of columnar structures
Claim 18 is objected to because of “a curvature of the plurality of first columnar structures increases compared to a shape closer to the first surface” in lines 2-4. The use of the limitation “increases compared to a shape” is confusing because it is unclear as to what the second shape is. Examiner suggests “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
Claim 19 is objected to because of “a curvature of the plurality of second columnar structures increases compared to a shape closer to the second surface” in lines 4-5. The use of the limitation “increases compared to a shape” is confusing because it is unclear as to what the second shape is. Examiner suggests “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
Claim 19 is further objected to because of “a plurality of second columnar structure” in line 2. This should be corrected to “a plurality of second columnar structures.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210323182 A1 by Claus et al. (hereinafter “Claus), as evidenced by Examiner provided NPL “Orientation dependence of the fracture mechanisms in (V,Al)N coatings determined by micropillar compression” by Schoof et al. (hereinafter “Schoof”; see also Citations below) and Examiner provided NPL “The Scientific Reason Why Razors Don’t Stay Sharp for Long” by Machemer (see also Citations below).
Regarding claim 1, Claus discloses a razor blade comprising (Claus, Fig. 2, razor blade 8): a substrate (Claus, Fig. 2, substrate 28) including a substrate tip (Claus, Fig. 2, tip portion 34), a first surface extending from the substrate tip to a first side (Claus, Fig. 4, first flank 36A), and a second surface extending from the substrate tip to a second side opposing the first side (Claus, Fig. 4, second flank 36B); and a metal coating layer formed on the first surface, the second surface, and the substrate tip (Claus, Figs. 5-6, first coating 60 & second coating 62; para. 43-44, “The materials may comprise one or more nanocomposites such as a carbon-based nanocomposites, metal-matrix nanocomposite… the first material may comprise a metal”), wherein the metal coating layer includes a plurality of columnar structures extending from at least one of the first surface or the second surface toward an outside of the substrate (Claus, para. 46, “The first coating 60 may comprise a first morphology… for example, an amorphous microstructure or a columnar or crystalline structure”; see also examiner note below), and wherein the plurality of columnar structures include a plurality of first columnar structures formed on the first surface (see Examiner annotated Claus Figure 36, hereinafter "EACF36"; 1st columnar structures).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: Regarding "a plurality of columnar structures extending from at least one of the first surface or the second surface toward an outside of the substrate", Examiner argues that Claus does teach on this because no further details are disclosed regarding the orientation of said extension nor the plurality of the columnar structures. Regardless of how the plurality of columnar structures are formed on the surfaces of the razor blade, the columnar structures must extend (horizontally, vertically, diagonally, etc.) from the first layer of coating that first contacts the substrate body towards the final resulting layer of the coating, which would be the outside of the substrate in this case. Examiner also wants to note that the wording of the limitation suggests either that each of the plurality of columnar structures extend from either surface toward the outside or that the entire grouping of the plurality of columnar structures forms an extension from either surface toward the outside.
Furthermore, Schoof evidences that an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as a distance from the substrate tip decreases (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom,"At tilt angles 70° and 90°, as can be seen in Fig. 5f, crack propagation and subsequent failure occurs mainly perpendicular to the loading direction… also applies to such nano-cracks, but the stress intensity factors are many times higher (up to 140 times), since the crack length can only be a fraction of the crystallite size"; Schoof, pg. 10, Fig. 7a & Fig. 7b; see also examiner note below).
Note: Regarding the decreasing angle of the columnar structures as the distance to the substrate tip decreases, Schoof, which is pertinent to the issue of metal-based coatings for manufacturing purposes, teaches on this as having a high tilt angle of the columnar structures lead to higher stress factors, especially for very small cracks (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom). This is an undesirable result for the substrate tip, as the tip is generally the narrowest portion of the razor blade, meaning a higher possibility of cracking. Schoof further provides details on the structural integrity of columnar structures at different angles and it would be reasonable that one of ordinary skill would optimize the tilt angles of the columnar structures throughout the blade in order to balance the different fracturing mechanisms as the width of the substrate changes (see Schoof Figs. 4 & 7). This is further evidenced by Machemer, which details a need in reducing microcracks for the improved durability of razor blades (Machemer, pg. 3, para. 3, "When the blade is moved across a coarse surface to sharpen it, microcracks form in the metal. And when a hair meets a razor at one of those microcracks, the crack widens, and chips flake off"; Machemer, pg. 3, para. 8, "The researchers have filed a provisional patent for a new razor manufacturing process that will have fewer microcracks").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of columnar structures of Claus to have a decreasing angle as a distance from the substrate tip decreases as taught by Schoof as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, the structural integrity of metal manufacturing coatings at different angles) may prompt variations of it (in this case, changing or optimizing the tilt angles of the columnar structures) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives (in this case, reducing cracking) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by Machemer).
Regarding claim 3, Claus discloses the plurality of first columnar structures have an angle with respect to the first surface (see Examiner annotated Claus Figure 34, hereinafter “EACF34”; 1st angles) that decreases as a distance from the first surface increases (EACF34, direction away from 1st surface; see also examiner note below).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: Regarding the angles drawn on EACF34, Examiner argues that because the limitation only states “the plurality of first columnar structures have an angle with respect to the first surface”, any angle of the plurality of structures with respect to the first surface would teach on this limitation. The claim does not make any note of each of “the plurality of first columnar structures”, therefore the angle is only applied to the plurality of first columnar structures as a whole. As the plurality of first columnar structures form a singular component of a coating on the first surface, Examiner argues that the angles as depicted in EACF34 do show an angle of the plurality of first columnar structures with respect to the first surface decreasing as a distance from the first surface increases.
Furthermore, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Schoof evidences that an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as a distance from the first surface increases (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom,"At tilt angles 70° and 90°, as can be seen in Fig. 5f, crack propagation and subsequent failure occurs mainly perpendicular to the loading direction… also applies to such nano-cracks, but the stress intensity factors are many times higher (up to 140 times), since the crack length can only be a fraction of the crystallite size"; Schoof, pg. 10, Fig. 7a & Fig. 7b; see also examiner note below).
Note: Schoof, which is pertinent to the issue of metal-based coatings for manufacturing purposes, teaches on this as having a high tilt angle of the columnar structures lead to higher stress factors, especially for very small cracks (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom). This is an undesirable result for the substrate tip, as the tip is generally the most narrow portion of the razor blade, or any other more fragile portion of the blade, meaning a higher possibility of cracking. Schoof further provides details on the structural integrity of columnar structures at different angles and it would be reasonable that one of ordinary skill would optimize the tilt angles of the columnar structures throughout the blade in order to balance the different fracturing mechanisms as the width of the substrate changes (see Schoof Figs. 4 & 7). This is further evidenced by Machemer, which details a need in reducing microcracks for the improved durability of razor blades (Machemer, pg. 3, para. 3, "When the blade is moved across a coarse surface to sharpen it, microcracks form in the metal. And when a hair meets a razor at one of those microcracks, the crack widens, and chips flake off"; Machemer, pg. 3, para. 8, "The researchers have filed a provisional patent for a new razor manufacturing process that will have fewer microcracks").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of columnar structures of Claus to have a decreasing angle as a distance from the first surface increases as taught by Schoof as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, the structural integrity of metal manufacturing coatings at different angles) may prompt variations of it (in this case, changing or optimizing the tilt angles of the columnar structures) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives (in this case, reducing cracking) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by Machemer).
Regarding claim 4, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a second columnar structure (EACF36, 2nd columnar structures) formed on the second surface (EACF36, 2nd surface) such that an angle with respect to the second surface decreases as a distance from the substrate tip decreases (EACF34, 2nd angles; see also examiner note below).
Note: Regarding the angles drawn on EACF34, Examiner argues that because the limitation only states “formed on the second surface such that an angle with respect to the second surface decreases”, any angle with respect to the second surface of the second columnar structure would teach on this limitation. The claim does not make any note of each of “the plurality of columnar structures”, therefore the angle is only applied to the second columnar structure as a whole. As the plurality of columnar structures form a singular component of a coating on their respective surface, Examiner argues that the angles as depicted in EACF34 do show an angle of the second columnar structure with respect to the second surface decreasing as a distance from the second surface increases.
Furthermore, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Schoof evidences that an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as a distance from the first surface increases (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom,"At tilt angles 70° and 90°, as can be seen in Fig. 5f, crack propagation and subsequent failure occurs mainly perpendicular to the loading direction… also applies to such nano-cracks, but the stress intensity factors are many times higher (up to 140 times), since the crack length can only be a fraction of the crystallite size"; Schoof, pg. 10, Fig. 7a & Fig. 7b; see also examiner note below).
Note: Schoof, which is pertinent to the issue of metal-based coatings for manufacturing purposes, teaches on this as having a high tilt angle of the columnar structures lead to higher stress factors, especially for very small cracks (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom). This is an undesirable result for the substrate tip, as the tip is generally the most narrow portion of the razor blade, or any other more fragile portion of the blade, meaning a higher possibility of cracking. Schoof further provides details on the structural integrity of columnar structures at different angles and it would be reasonable that one of ordinary skill would optimize the tilt angles of the columnar structures throughout the blade in order to balance the different fracturing mechanisms as the width and shape of the substrate changes (see Schoof Figs. 4 & 7). This is further evidenced by Machemer, which details a need in reducing microcracks for the improved durability of razor blades (Machemer, pg. 3, para. 3, "When the blade is moved across a coarse surface to sharpen it, microcracks form in the metal. And when a hair meets a razor at one of those microcracks, the crack widens, and chips flake off"; Machemer, pg. 3, para. 8, "The researchers have filed a provisional patent for a new razor manufacturing process that will have fewer microcracks").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of columnar structures of Claus to have a decreasing angle as a distance from the substrate tip decreases as taught by Schoof as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, the structural integrity of metal manufacturing coatings at different angles) may prompt variations of it (in this case, changing or optimizing the tilt angles of the columnar structures) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives (in this case, reducing cracking) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by Machemer).
Regarding claim 5, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a plurality of second columnar structures (EACF36, 2nd columnar structures) formed on the second surface (EACF36, 2nd surface), and wherein the plurality of second columnar structures have an angle with respect to the second surface (EACF34, 2nd angles) that decreases as the distance from the second surface increases (EACF34, direction away from 2nd surface).
Furthermore, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Schoof evidences that an angle with respect to a surface decreases as a distance from the surface increases (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom,"At tilt angles 70° and 90°, as can be seen in Fig. 5f, crack propagation and subsequent failure occurs mainly perpendicular to the loading direction… also applies to such nano-cracks, but the stress intensity factors are many times higher (up to 140 times), since the crack length can only be a fraction of the crystallite size"; Schoof, pg. 10, Fig. 7a & Fig. 7b; see also examiner note below).
Note: Schoof, which is pertinent to the issue of metal-based coatings for manufacturing purposes, teaches on this as having a high tilt angle of the columnar structures lead to higher stress factors, especially for very small cracks (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom). This is an undesirable result for the substrate tip, as the tip is generally the most narrow portion of the razor blade, or any other more fragile portion of the blade, meaning a higher possibility of cracking. Schoof further provides details on the structural integrity of columnar structures at different angles and it would be reasonable that one of ordinary skill would optimize the tilt angles of the columnar structures throughout the blade in order to balance the different fracturing mechanisms as the width and shape of the substrate changes (see Schoof Figs. 4 & 7). This is further evidenced by Machemer, which details a need in reducing microcracks for the improved durability of razor blades (Machemer, pg. 3, para. 3, "When the blade is moved across a coarse surface to sharpen it, microcracks form in the metal. And when a hair meets a razor at one of those microcracks, the crack widens, and chips flake off"; Machemer, pg. 3, para. 8, "The researchers have filed a provisional patent for a new razor manufacturing process that will have fewer microcracks").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of columnar structures of Claus to have a decreasing angle as a distance from the respective surfaces increases as taught by Schoof as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, the structural integrity of metal manufacturing coatings at different angles) may prompt variations of it (in this case, changing or optimizing the tilt angles of the columnar structures) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives (in this case, reducing cracking) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by Machemer).
Regarding claim 6, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a plurality of third columnar structures (EACF36, 3rd columnar structures) formed on the substrate tip and radially formed around the substrate tip (Claus, Fig. 2, tip portion 34).
Regarding claim 7, Claus discloses the metal coating layer includes a coating tip formed on the substrate tip (see Examiner annotated Claus Figure 8, hereinafter “EACF8”; coating tip), and wherein the plurality of columnar structures are formed within 300 nanometers from the coating tip (Claus, Abstract, “The first and second coatings each extend from the tip region toward the base”; para. 46, “The microstructure may include, for example, an amorphous microstructure or a columnar or crystalline microstructure”).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Claus discloses 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 (EACF8, angles with respect to substrate surface, 1st & 2nd surfaces, protractor).
Regarding claim 14, Claus discloses the metal coating layer includes at least one of CrB, CrC, or CrCB based on Cr (Claus, para. 43, “The materials may comprise one or more carbon-containing materials… nitrides (e.g., boron nitride, niobium nitride, chromium nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum titanium nitride, titanium carbon nitride), carbides (e.g., silicon carbide or chromium carbide)… The carbon-containing materials can be doped with other elements, such as tungsten, titanium, or chromium by including these additives…”).
Regarding claim 15, Claus discloses the metal coating layer includes any one of TiC, TiB, TiCB, TiAlC, or TiSiC based on Ti (Claus, para. 43, “nitrides (e.g., boron nitride, niobium nitride, chromium nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum titanium nitride, titanium carbon nitride)… titanium diboride… The carbon-containing materials can be doped with other elements, such as tungsten, titanium…”).
Regarding claim 16, Claus discloses a razor cartridge (Claus, Fig. 1, razor cartridge 14) comprising: at least one blade (Claus, Fig. 2, razor blade 8) including an edge portion (Claus, Fig. 2, flanks 36) and a cutting edge (Claus, Fig. 3, cutting edge 42) formed at a tip (Claus, Fig. 3, tip 40) of the edge portion; and a blade housing (Claus, Fig. 1, cartridge housing 16) configured to accommodate the blade in a longitudinal direction such that at least a portion of the cutting edge is exposed upward (see Claus Fig. 1), wherein the razor blade includes: a substrate (Claus, Fig. 4, substrate 28) including a substrate tip (Claus, Fig. 4, tip region 35), a first surface extending from the substrate tip to a first side (EACF34, 1st surface), and a second surface extending from the substrate tip to a second side opposing the first side (EACF34, 2nd surface), and a metal coating layer formed on the first surface, the second surface, and the substrate tip (Claus, Figs. 5-6, first coating 60 & second coating 62; para. 43-44, “The materials may comprise one or more nanocomposites such as a carbon-based nanocomposites, metal-matrix nanocomposite… the first material may comprise a metal”), and wherein the metal coating layer includes a plurality of columnar structures extending from at least one of the first surface or the second surface toward an outside of the substrate (Claus, para. 46, “The first coating 60 may comprise a first morphology… for example, an amorphous microstructure or a columnar or crystalline structure”; see also examiner note below), and wherein the plurality of columnar structures include a plurality first columnar structure (EACF36, 1st columnar structures) formed on the first surface (EACF36, 1st surface) and configured such that an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as a distance from the substrate tip decreases.
Note: Regarding "a plurality of columnar structures extending from at least one of the first surface or the second surface toward an outside of the substrate", Examiner argues that Claus does teach on this because no further details are disclosed regarding the orientation of said extension nor the plurality of the columnar structures. Regardless of how the plurality of columnar structures are formed on the surfaces of the razor blade, the columnar structures must extend (horizontally, vertically, diagonally, etc.) from the first layer of coating that first contacts the substrate body towards the final resulting layer of the coating, which would be the outside of the substrate in this case. Examiner also wants to note that the wording of the limitation suggests either that each of the plurality of columnar structures extend from either surface toward the outside or that the entire grouping of the plurality of columnar structures forms an extension from either surface toward the outside.
Furthermore, Schoof evidences that an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as a distance from the substrate tip decreases (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom,"At tilt angles 70° and 90°, as can be seen in Fig. 5f, crack propagation and subsequent failure occurs mainly perpendicular to the loading direction… also applies to such nano-cracks, but the stress intensity factors are many times higher (up to 140 times), since the crack length can only be a fraction of the crystallite size"; Schoof, pg. 10, Fig. 7a & Fig. 7b; see also examiner note below).
Note: Regarding the decreasing angle of the columnar structures as the distance to the substrate tip decreases, Schoof, which is pertinent to the issue of metal-based coatings for manufacturing purposes, teaches on this as having a high tilt angle of the columnar structures lead to higher stress factors, especially for very small cracks (Schoof, pg. 8, Short cracks at the bottom). This is an undesirable result for the substrate tip, as the tip is generally the narrowest portion of the razor blade, meaning a higher possibility of cracking. Schoof further provides details on the structural integrity of columnar structures at different angles and it would be reasonable that one of ordinary skill would optimize the tilt angles of the columnar structures throughout the blade in order to balance the different fracturing mechanisms as the width of the substrate changes (see Schoof Figs. 4 & 7). This is further evidenced by Machemer, which details a need in reducing microcracks for the improved durability of razor blades (Machemer, pg. 3, para. 3, "When the blade is moved across a coarse surface to sharpen it, microcracks form in the metal. And when a hair meets a razor at one of those microcracks, the crack widens, and chips flake off"; Machemer, pg. 3, para. 8, "The researchers have filed a provisional patent for a new razor manufacturing process that will have fewer microcracks").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of columnar structures of Claus to have a decreasing angle as a distance from the substrate tip decreases as taught by Schoof as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, the structural integrity of metal manufacturing coatings at different angles) may prompt variations of it (in this case, changing or optimizing the tilt angles of the columnar structures) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives (in this case, reducing cracking) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (as evidenced by Machemer).
Regarding claim 18, Claus discloses the plurality of first columnar structures (EACF26, 1st columnar structures) have a shape bent toward the substrate tip (see Examiner annotated Claus Figure 4, hereinafter “EACF4”; shape 1 & substrate tip) as a distance from the first surface increases (EACF4, direction away from 1st surface) such that a curvature of the plurality of first columnar structures increases compared to a shape (EACF4, shape 1 & shape 2) closer to the first surface as the distance from the first surface increases.
PNG
media_image4.png
731
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a plurality of second columnar structure (EACF36, 2nd columnar structures) formed on the second surface (EACF36, 2nd surface), and wherein the plurality of second columnar structures have a shape (EACF4, shape 3) bent toward the substrate tip (EACF4, substrate tip) as a distance from the second surface increases (EACF4, direction away from 2nd surface) such that a curvature of the plurality of second columnar structures increases compared to a shape (EACF4, shape 3 & shape 4) closer to the second surface as the distance from the second surface increases.
Regarding claim 20, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a plurality of third columnar structures (EACF36, 3rd columnar structures) formed on the substrate tip, and wherein the plurality of third columnar structures are radially formed around the substrate tip (EACF36, 3rd columnar structures) such that the plurality of third columnar structures have different heights (see Examiner annotated Claus Figure 22, hereinafter “EACF22”; 3rd columnar structures & varying heights; see also examiner note below).
Note: Regarding the different heights of the plurality of the third columnar structures, because the limitation is regarding “the plurality of third columnar structures” and not each of the “plurality of third columnar structures”, the limitation reads on the third columnar structures as a whole. This is, as detailed in the claim above, the columnar structures that comprise the coating on the substrate tip. Therefore, Examiner argues that Claus does teach the plurality of third columnar structures formed around the substrate tip has different heights in order to form the sharp cutting edge of the razor blade.
PNG
media_image5.png
398
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210323182 A1 by Claus in view of US 6962000 B2 by Brada et al. (hereinafter “Brada”), as evidenced by Schoof and Machemer as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Claus does not explicitly disclose a tip distance.
Brada, however, does teach a coating tip (Brada, Fig. 3, coating 35) formed on the substrate tip (Brada, Fig. 3, substrate 19), and wherein a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip includes a value between 20 nanometers and 550 nanometers (Brada, col. 7, line 32, “d1=0.45 μm”; Fig. 3, distance d1, substrate 19, coating 35).
Note 0.45 μm = 450 nm
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip of Claus be between 20-550 nm as taught by Brada in order to reduce the cutting forces on the cutting member while still maintaining shaving comfort and durability (Brada, col. 2, lines 6-16, “to provide a cutting member… wherein wear of the cutting member is further reduced and the service life is further extended, while the cutting forces are at least equally small and the shaving comfort at least equally high as in the known cutting member… which the ultimate tip extends from the cutting edge over a distance d1”).
Regarding claim 11, Claus discloses the metal coating layer includes a coating tip (EACF8, coating tip) formed on the substrate tip (Claus, Fig. 2, tip portion 35). Claus does not explicitly disclose a ratio.
Brada, however, does teach a ratio of a thickness of the metal coating layer formed on the first surface and the second surface (Brada, col. 7, line 65, “coating 35 has a thickness h of approximately 0.2 μm”) to a thickness of the metal coating layer between the substrate tip and the coating tip (Brada, col. 7, line 32, “d1=0.45 μm”; Fig. 3, distance d1, substrate 19, coating 35) ranges from 1: 1 to 1: 0.3 (0.2/0.45 = 0.44; ratio = 1: 0.44 which is between 1: 1 & 1: 0.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the blade of Claus to have a ratio as taught by Brada in order to improve resistance and reduce cutting forces on the blade (Brada, col. 8, lines 22-26, “the coating comprises… the profiles of the ultimate tip and the basic tip, so that the cutting member has a comparatively high resistance to wear and the cutting forces are comparatively small”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210323182 A1 by Claus in view of CN 106794585 A by Kalfagiannis et al. (hereinafter “Kalfagiannis”), as evidenced by Schoof and Machemer as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a plurality of second columnar structures (EACF36, 2nd columnar structures) formed on the second surface. Claus does not explicitly disclose a height of 100 nanometers or less.
Kalfagiannis, however, does teach the plurality of first columnar structures and the plurality of second columnar structures have a height of 100 nanometers or less (see Kalfagiannis English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “KEMTD”; Description, para. 104, lines 650-651, “The thickness of the strengthening layer 16 measured perpendicular to the substrate side is between 20 and 150 nanometers”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the height of the first and second columnar structures of Claus be 100 nm or less as taught by Kalfagiannis in order to improve cutting performance (KEMTD, Description, para. 112, lines 727-728, “Increased durability enables the use of thinner edge profiles in razor blade products, which in turn benefits the product's shaving performance in terms of flow and overall evaluation”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210323182 A1 by Claus in view of US 6962000 B2 by Brada and CN 106794585 A by Kalfagiannis, as evidenced by Schoof and Machemer as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Claus discloses the plurality of columnar structures further include a plurality of second columnar structures (EACF26, 2nd columnar structures) formed on the second surface, and a plurality of third columnar structures formed on the substrate tip (EACF36, 3rd columnar structures). Claus does not explicitly disclose heights of the structures.
Kalfagiannis, however, does teach at least one of the plurality of first columnar structures or the second columnar structures have a height of 100 nanometers or less (KEMTD, Description, para. 104, lines 650-651, “The thickness of the strengthening layer 16 measured perpendicular to the substrate side is between 20 and 150 nanometers”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the height of the first and second columnar structures of Claus be 100 nm or less as taught by Kalfagiannis in order to improve cutting performance (KEMTD, Description, para. 112, lines 727-728, “Increased durability enables the use of thinner edge profiles in razor blade products, which in turn benefits the product's shaving performance in terms of flow and overall evaluation”).
Kalfagiannis does not explicitly disclose a height of the third columnar structures.
Brada, however, does teach at least one of the plurality of third columnar structures has a height of more than 100 nanometers (Brada, col. 7, line 32, “d1=0.45 μm”; Fig. 3, distance d1, substrate 19, coating 35).
Note 0.45 μm = 450 nm
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip of Claus be between 20-550 nm as taught by Brada in order to reduce the cutting forces on the cutting member while still maintaining shaving comfort and durability (Brada, col. 2, lines 6-16, “to provide a cutting member… wherein wear of the cutting member is further reduced and the service life is further extended, while the cutting forces are at least equally small and the shaving comfort at least equally high as in the known cutting member… which the ultimate tip extends from the cutting edge over a distance d1”).
Claims 13 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210323182 A1 by Claus in view of EP 3895861 A1 by Gester et al. (hereinafter “Gester”), as evidenced by Schoof and Machemer as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Claus discloses wherein the metal coating layer includes a coating tip (EACF8, coating tip) formed on the substrate tip (Claus, Fig. 34, tip region 35), a first coating surface extending from the coating tip to one side (EACF8, 3rd surface), and a second coating surface extending from the coating tip to the other side (EACF8, 4th surface). Claus does not explicitly disclose angles.
Gester, however, does teach an angle between an extension direction of the plurality of columnar structures located at the point where a virtual line (Gester, Fig. 4b, bisecting line 260) space (Gester, Fig. 4b, cutting edge 4) about 100 nanometers apart (Gester, Claim 5, “length d1 being the dimension projected onto the imaginary extension of the first surface (9’) taken from the cutting edge (4) to the first intersecting line (12) from 0.1 to 7 μm”) from the coating tip intersects any one of the first coating surface or the second coating surface (Gester, Fig. 4b, first surface 9), and an extension direction of the first surface is 50 degrees to 80 degrees (Gester, Fig. 4b, θ1; col. 4, para. 28, lines 57-58, “the first wedge angle θ1 ranges from 5° to 75°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have an angle between two extension directions of Claus be between 50-80 degrees as taught by Gester in order to provide stabilization to the cutting edge and help prevent injury (Gester, col. 4, paras. 24-25, lines 34-48, “the first wedge angle θ1 has therefore the function of a stabilizing angle of the cutting edge preventing damage to the cutting edge… the wedge angle θ1 allows to lift the cutting edge from the object to be cut which makes the cutting step safer…”).
Regarding claim 17, Claus discloses the plurality of first columnar structures (EACF36, 1st columnar structures) are configured to face a skin surface during shaving, wherein the metal coating layer includes a coating tip (EACF8, coating tip) formed on the substrate tip, a first coating surface extending from the coating tip to a third side (EACF8, 3rd surface), and a second coating surface extending from the coating tip to a fourth side opposing the third side (EACF8, 4th surface). Claus does not explicitly disclose an angle.
Gester, however, does teach an angle between an extension direction of the plurality of columnar structures located at a point where a virtual line space (Gester, Fig. 4b, bisecting line 260) about 100 nanometers apart from the coating tip (Gester, Claim 5, “length d1 being the dimension projected onto the imaginary extension of the first surface (9’) taken from the cutting edge (4) to the first intersecting line (12) from 0.1 to 7 μm”) intersects any one of the first coating surface or the second coating surface (Gester, Fig. 4b, first surface 9), and the skin surface is 35 degrees to 110 degrees (Gester, Fig. 4b, θ1; col. 4, para. 28, lines 57-58, “the first wedge angle θ1 ranges from 5° to 75°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have an angle between two extension directions of Claus be between 35-110 degrees as taught by Gester in order to provide stabilization to the cutting edge and help prevent injury (Gester, col. 4, paras. 24-25, lines 34-48, “the first wedge angle θ1 has therefore the function of a stabilizing angle of the cutting edge preventing damage to the cutting edge… the wedge angle θ1 allows to lift the cutting edge from the object to be cut which makes the cutting step safer…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on September 15, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under header Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 beginning on page 8 have been considered. Applicant argues that with the newly introduced claim limitation “… extending from at least one of the first surface or the second surface…” and “an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as the distance from the substrate tip decreases,” the combination of prior art presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 17, 2025 does not teach all the claim limitations. In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding previously cited prior art US 20210323182 A1 by Claus, Examiner disagrees that Claus does not teach on “extending from at least one of the first surface or the second surface” and “an angle with respect to the first surface decreases as the distance from the substrate tip decreases”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, as necessitated by the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Schoof and Machemer. As the claim limitations currently stand, Examiner does not believe the language is specific enough to claim the invention as shown in the disclosure (also refer to Claim Objections above). Examiner recommends amending the claim limitation to be more specific, especially regarding the direction of extension, the angle of the columnar structures, and clarity on whether its each of the plurality of columnar structures or the structures as a whole. Independent claim 16 is similarly rejected, as detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Therefore, any dependent claims are subsequently rejected as well.
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 DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
Citations
Schoof, Markus R., et al. “Orientation Dependence of the Fracture Mechanisms in (V,Al)N Coatings Determined by Micropillar Compression.” Journal of Materials Research/Pratt’s Guide to Venture Capital Sources, vol. 37, no. 4, 9 Feb. 2022, pp. 1003–1017, https://doi.org/10.1557/s43578-022-00506-4. Accessed 5 Jan. 2026.
Smithsonian Magazine, and Theresa Machemer. “The Scientific Reason Why Razors Don’t Stay Sharp for Long.” Smithsonian Magazine, 11 Aug. 2020, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-razors-are-dull-within-weeks-according-science-180975534/. Accessed 5 Jan. 2026.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724