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 October 14th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-15 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 24th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the aforementioned claim depend on cancelled claim 3. For purposes of examination, examiner has treated them as depending on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4 and 5 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the
broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim
does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP §
2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites a broad recitation (all features which are not prefaced with the phrase “preferably”), and the claims also recite additional features following the phrase “preferably” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claims, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, features prefaced by “preferably” will be treated as optional features. Claim 5 is rejected as depending on claim 4.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre -
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The current structure of claim 4
seems to imply that the first material comprises all 8 listed materials and types of materials .
However, the specification of the claimed invention indicates that the first material can
comprised of any one of the 8 materials and types of materials, and does not need to be
comprised of all 8. From these conflicting limitations, the scope of the operating method of the
claim cannot reasonably be determined. Examiner interprets that based on the specification of the
claimed invention, the first material need only be consisted of at least one of the listed materials.
Examiner recommends modifying claim 4 to read: “The cutting element of claim 1, wherein the
first material comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: …” This phrasing and
interpretation aligns with the invention as described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Daniel Lazarshik et al. (US 5088195 A - hereinafter Lazarshik).
Regarding claim 1, Lazarshik teaches a cutting element comprising a substrate (Fig. 1,
Metal Foil Strip 16) with at least one aperture (Fig. 1, Apertures 18) which comprises a cutting
edge (Fig. 3, Edge 20) along at least a portion of a perimeter of the aperture, wherein the cutting
edges have an asymmetric cross-sectional shape with a first face (Fig. 3, face seen from top view
of Fig. 3), a second face (Fig. 3, face seen from bottom view of Fig. 3) opposed to the first face
and a cutting edge (Fig. 3, Edge 20) at the intersection of the first face and the second face,
wherein:
• the first face comprises a first surface (Fig. 3, Annular Portion 26) and a primary
bevel (Fig. 3, Facet 30) with:
• the primary bevel extending from the cutting edge (Fig. 3, Edge 20) to the first
surface,
• a first intersecting line (FIL in modified Fig. 3 below) connecting the primary bevel
and the first surface, and
• a first wedge angle (FWA in modified Fig. 3 below) between an imaginary extension
of the first surface and the primary bevel, and
• the second face comprises a secondary bevel (Fig. 3, Annular Portion 28) and a
tertiary bevel (Fig. 3, Lower Surface 24) with:
• the secondary bevel extending from the cutting edge to the tertiary bevel,
• a second intersecting line (SIL in modified Fig. 3 below) connecting the secondary
bevel and the tertiary bevel,
• a second wedge angle (SWA in modified Fig. 3 below) between the first surface and
the secondary bevel, and
• a third wedge angle (TWA in modified Fig. 3 below) between the first surface and the
tertiary bevel, wherein the first wedge angle is greater than the second wedge angle
(SWA is 0 degrees, and FWA is greater than 0 degrees) and the second wedge angle
is less than or equal to the third wedge angle (SWA is equal to TWA).
• wherein the substrate comprises a first material (Col. 3, lines 13-24 - Steel). The limitation “comprises a first material and a second material …” has not been addressed, as the use of “or” between the two limitations means that only one of the addressed limitation and the quoted limitation is required to be addressed.
PNG
media_image1.png
335
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lazarshik further teaches the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the
substrate has a thickness of 20 micrometers to 1000 micrometers (Col 1 lines 47-48; Metal Foil
Strip 16 is 0.3 mm (300 micrometers) thick).
Regarding claim 10, Lazarshik further teaches the cutting element of any of claim 1,
wherein the at least one aperture has a form which is circular (Fig. 1, Apertures 18 are circular), wherein it is preferred that the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm2 to
25 mm2 (Col 3 lines 18-19; the diameter of each aperture is 3 mm, so the area is approximately 7
mm2).
Regarding claim 11, Lazarshik further teaches the cutting element of any of claim 1,
wherein the first wedge angle ranges from 5 degrees to 75 degrees (Modified Fig. 3 above,
FWA; 26 and 22 are at an angle of 20 degrees, and 22 is parallel to 30, so the FWA is 20
degrees).
Regarding claim 14, Lazarshik further teaches the cutting element of claim 1, wherein
the secondary bevel comprises a further beveled region (Fig. 4A, item 32) extending from the
cutting edge to a third intersecting line (Fig. 4A, region defined by Angle 44) connecting the
secondary bevel and the beveled region, the beveled region having a fourth wedge
angle (Fig. 4A, angle between 32 and 26) between the first surface and the beveled region.
Regarding claim 15, Lazarshik further teaches a hair removal device (Fig. 1, Shaving
System 10) comprising the cutting element of claim 1.
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 4, 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Daniel Lazarshik et al. (US 5088195 A - hereinafter Lazarshik) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christopher Wort et al. (WO 02100610 A1 – hereinafter Wort).
Regarding claim 4, Lazarshik fails to teach the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises a ceramic material.
However, Wort teaches a substrate of a razor blade which comprises a first material
(Page 5 last paragraph, SiC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the substrate of Lazarshik to be comprised of ceramic as taught by Wort. Doing so is beneficial as ceramics generally make longer lasting blades (Wort; Page 2 Para 2).
Regarding claim 5, Lazarshik fails to teach the cutting element of any of claim 4,
wherein there is a second material that comprises a material selected from the group consisting
of:
• oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides, preferably aluminum nitride, chromium nitride,
titanium nitride, titanium carbon nitride, titanium aluminum nitride, cubic boron
nitride,
• boron aluminum magnesium,
• carbon
• combinations thereof.
However, Wort teaches a substrate of a razor blade which comprises a first material
(Page 5 last paragraph -Mo, W, Si, or SiC) and a second material that comprises carbon (Page 5
last paragraph - CVD diamond).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the substrate of Lazarshik to be comprised of two materials, the
second material comprising carbon in the form of the CVD diamond material of Wort. The
additional diamond material is beneficial as it allows the cutting edge to remain sharp during
extended use, and it will not rust or oxidize (Wort; Page 9 para 2).
Regarding claim 9, Lazarshik fails to teach the cutting element of claim 1, wherein there
is a second material and the first intersecting line is shaped in the second material.
However, Wort teaches a CVD diamond layer in addition to a first material that has a
first intersecting line shaped in it (Fig. 1, intersecting line defined by the first joint to the right of
the blade tip).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the substrate of Lazarshik to be comprised of two materials, the
second material containing the first intersecting line and comprising carbon in the form of the
CVD diamond material of Wort. The additional diamond material is beneficial as it allows the
cutting edge to remain sharp during extended use, and it will not rust or oxidize (Wort; Page 9
para 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lazarshik fails to teach the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the
cutting edge has a tip radius of less than 200 nm.
However, Wort teaches a tip radius of less than 200 nm (Page 4 para 3 - tip radius of less
than 60nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the tip radius of the combination of Lazarshik and Wort to be less than 200
nm as taught by Wort. It is well known in the art that tip radius can be optimized to provide a
sharper edge and lower cutting force.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel
Lazarshik et al. (US 5088195 A - hereinafter Lazarshik) as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Christopher Wort et al. (WO 02100610 A1 – hereinafter Wort) and Jihan
Yang et al. (See attached research article – hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 7, Lazarshik fails to teach the cutting element of claim 1, wherein there
is a second material, the material of which is nano-crystalline diamond and has an average
surface roughness of less than 100 nm.
However, Wort teaches a substrate of a razor blade which comprises a first material
(Page 5 last paragraph -Mo, W, Si, or SiC) and a second material that comprises carbon (Page 5
last paragraph - CVD diamond) and has an average surface roughness of less than 100 nm (Page
6 para 1).
The combination of Lazarshik and Wort fails to teach that the material is nano-crystalline
diamond, however Wort does teach that the second material is CVD diamond.
Yang teaches nanocrystalline diamond for use in cutting tools (Yang, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the second material of the combination of Lazarshik and Wort to be nanocrystalline diamond as taught by Yang. Nanocrystalline diamond is a beneficial material as
it has a low coefficient of friction and a low surface roughness (Yang, Page 2 para 4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel
Lazarshik et al. (US 5088195 A - hereinafter Lazarshik) as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Elizabeth Leonard et al. (US 4984365 A - hereinafter Leonard).
Regarding claim 8, Lazarshik further teaches the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the
first material is coated at least in regions (Col 4 lines 22-26).
Lazarshik fails to teach that the first material is coated with an low-friction material.
However, Leonard teaches a shaving blade coated in PTFE (Col 2 lines 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the first material of Lazarshik to be coated in PTFE as taught by Leonard.
PTFE is a beneficial coating as it acts as a dry lubricant and provides a non-stick surface (Leonard, Col 2 lines 55-60).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel
Lazarshik et al. (US 5088195 A - hereinafter Lazarshik) as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Labros Kontokostas et al. (EP 3372361 A1 – hereinafter Kontokostas).
Regarding claim 12, Lazarshik fails to teach the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the
dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface
taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line has a length which ranges from 5
micrometers to 150 micrometers.
However, Kontokostas teaches a razor blade where the distance from the cutting edge
(Fig. 8C, Tip 14’) to the intersecting line (Fig. 8C, first joint to the left of Tip 14’) is 40
micrometers (Claim 1 - the first intersecting line is at T40, which is 40 micrometers from the
tip), as projected onto a first surface (Fig. 8C, Planar Portion 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the cutting element of Lazarshik such that the dimension projected onto the
first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the
second intersecting line has a length which ranges from 5 micrometers to 150 micrometers as
taught by Kontokostas. Doing so is beneficial it creates a geometry for a razor blade which
produces suitable shaving effects (Kontokostas, [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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