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 April 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-15 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the claim objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 14th, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on 1/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3 of claim 1, “the cutting edges” are referred to, however only one cutting edge has been introduced beforehand (“a cutting edge” on line 2).
Claim 1 recites “a cutting edge” on both lines 2 and 4. It is unclear as to whether the cutting edge mentioned on line 4 is the same as the one mentioned on line 2 because of this phrasing. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret that the cutting edge mentioned on both of lines 2 and 4 refer to the same cutting edge.
Claim 1 refers to “the imaginary extension” and “the dimension” in the last bullet point, however no such imaginary extension or dimension have been introduced beforehand.
Claim 4 refers to “diamond like carbon (DLC)”. This should be changed to read “diamond-like carbon (DLC)”
Claims 4, 5, and 10 refer to “the group consisting of”, and should instead refer to “a group consisting of”.
Claims 4 and 5 refer to “and combinations thereof” in the second to last and last lines. This should instead read “or combinations thereof”, as only a single material is recited to be selected from the groups of listed materials.
Claim 5 starts with “the cutting element of any of claim 4”, and should instead start “the cutting element of claim 4”.
Claim 7 refers to “nano-crystalline diamond”. This should instead read “nanocrystalline diamond”.
Claim 7 refers to “the fine-crystalline diamond” without first introducing a fine-crystalline diamond. Examiner interprets that this fine-crystalline diamond is the same as the aforementioned nanocrystalline diamond. Claim 7 should replace “the fine-crystalline diamond” with “the nanocrystalline diamond”.
Claim 8 refers to “an low-friction material”, which should instead read “a low-friction material”.
Claims 1 and 12 state “the first intersecting line from 0.1 to 7 μm”. This should instead read “the first intersecting line ranges from 0.1 to 7 μm”.
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 1 and 10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intersection of the first face and the second face" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as any intersection of the first face and the second face.
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 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the at least one aperture has a form which is selected from the group consisting of circular, ellipsoidal, square, triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, hexagonal, octagonal or combinations thereof”, and the claim also recites “wherein it is preferred that the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm2 to 25 mm2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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 claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the narrow ranges of claim 10 regarding the area of the aperture as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as regarding the form of the aperture only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel Lazarshik et al. (US 5088195 A - hereinafter Lazarshik) in view of H. D. Espinosa et al. (See attached research article – hereinafter Espinosa) and Harold E. Camp et al. (US 3606682 A – hereinafter Camp).
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) and a second material (Col. 4, lines 22-24 - coating) adjacent to the first material.
PNG
media_image1.png
363
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lazarshik does not teach wherein the second material fulfills the following properties: a thickness of 0.15 to 20 µm and a transverse rupture stress σ0 of at least 2.5 GPa, and wherein the primary bevel has a length d1 being the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the first intersecting line from 0.1 to 7 μm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second material to have a thickness of 0.15 to 20 µm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, Page 8 lines 7-8) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Espinosa teaches a material with a transverse rupture stress of at least 2.5 GPa (Page 2 Para 1 – ultrananocrystalline diamond with a transverse rupture stress of 4.13 GPa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lazarshik such that the second material is the ultrananocrystalline diamond as defined above by Espinosa. Doing so is beneficial as ultrananocrystalline diamond exhibits exceptional hardness and extremely low friction coefficient and wear (Page 1, Para 1 of the Introduction).
Camp teaches wherein an imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to a first intersecting line ranges from 0.1 to 7 µm (Fig. 1, where the first surface is the topmost parallel surface 18, the cutting edge is cutting edge 16, and the first intersecting line is where the topmost parallel surface 18 and facet 14 meet. Col. 2, lines 20-36 – angle a ranges 10 degrees to 35 degrees, and length b is equal to or less than 0.002 inches. This yields a maximum extension of the first surface between the first intersecting line to the cutting edge of 50.6 µm, for a range of 50.6 µm or less). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the imaginary extension of the combination of Lazarshik and Espinosa to range from 0.1 to 7 µm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Camp identifies the angle a and length b (which define the imaginary extension) as result effective variables which need to be optimized to prevent a blunt or weak blade in addition to preventing excessive friction (Camp; Col. 2, lines 20-36).
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 7, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, and Camp already teaches the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the material of the second material is nanocrystalline diamond (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and fulfills the following property: an average surface roughness RRMS of less than 100 nm (Espinosa Page 5, last para of left column – rms of 20 nm).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, and Camp already teaches the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the first material is coated at least in regions with a low-friction material (See the rejection of claim 1 – the first material is coated with the second material, which is low-friction).
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 12, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, and Camp already teaches the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the first intersecting line ranges from 0.1 to 7 μm (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
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) in view of H. D. Espinosa et al. (See attached research article – hereinafter Espinosa) and Harold E. Camp et al. (US 3606682 A – hereinafter Camp) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christopher Wort et al. (WO 02100610 A1 – hereinafter Wort).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, and Camp does not teach the cutting element of claim 1, where the first material comprises a material from the claimed list.
However, Wort teaches a substrate of a razor blade which comprises a first material
(Page 5 last paragraph, SiC) which is a ceramic comprising at least carbon.
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, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, Camp, and Wort already teaches the cutting element of claim 4, wherein the second material comprises carbon (diamond is formed from carbon – see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, and Camp does not teach the cutting element of claim 1, wherein the first intersecting line is shaped in the second material.
However, Wort teaches a 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 such that the second material contains the first intersecting line as taught by Wort. The first intersecting line being shaped in the second material is beneficial as it prevents the intersecting line from rusting or oxidizing (Wort; Page 9 para 2).
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Lazarshik, Espinosa, and Camp does not 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 60 nm).
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, Espinosa, and Camp 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Lazarshik does not teach a second material comprising a certain thickness and transverse rupture stress. After further in-depth review of Lazarshik, it was found that Lazarshik does disclose a second material (Col. 4, lines 22-24 - coating) adjacent to the first material, and since the claimed thickness of the second material is not found to be a critical range in the applicant’s specification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second material to have a thickness of 0.15 to 20 µm (See the rejection of claim 1 above). Further, while Lazarshik does not teach the claimed transverse rupture stress for the second material, Espinosa has been brought in to teach a material which does teach the claimed range for the transverse rupture stress with accompanying motivation to use the material taught by Espinosa (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant additionally argues that Lazarshik does not teach the geometry claimed, as evidenced by the inclusion one of the drawings of the claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the vague reference to the overall geometry of Fig. 5 when upside down) are not recited in the rejected claim(s), and that the geometry of the invention as claimed is taught by Lazarshik. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant contends that the Lazarshik does not teach the geometry as claimed, but fails to describe in any way how Lazarshik allegedly does not teach or is used incorrectly to teach the geometry as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights