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) because they fail to show “the second surface” as described in the specification on pg. 13, lines 23 & 29; pg. 14, lines 4. Refer to Examiner annotated Figure 3 Overlaid with Figure 1a (hereinafter “EAF3OF1A”). Because there are no figures that show the aperture on the entire cutting element, with no indication as to where the second surface is, it is unclear as to where and how the aperture is oriented on the cutting element. When comparing the perspective view of the aperture in Figure 1a to the perspective view of the first cutting element in view of the first surface 9, it suggests that the aperture is actually within the cutting element. However, this is contradicted by the location of the second face 3, which is labeled at the top of both the cutting element of Figure 1a and the aperture of Figure 3, suggesting that the aperture of Figure 3 is on or partially forms the second face 3. Furthermore, if considering Figures 1b and 1c, where the first material 18 and second material 19 are labelled on the aperture, and then comparing that with where the first material 18 and second material 19 are labelled in Figure 7, it suggests that the aperture is actually located at the boundary surface 20, in between the two materials. As seen in EAF3OF1A, Examiner displays 2 non-limiting possible orientations for the aperture based on the figures and specifications. Examiner also sees an interpretation where the aperture spans both the entire length and width of the cutting element, due to how the first face 2 and the second face 3 are labelled in the figures. However, that interpretation adds to the confusion as Figure 3 indicates that there is a cutting edge 4 on an outside edge of the cutting element. However, in the specifications, it states that the cutting edge of the aperture is located at an inner edge of the aperture. Also there is no indication in the figures that the aperture has any bevels on it. Due to the unclear nature of the location of the aperture, examiner is interpreting that the aperture can be located on any surface that has a face.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities (Notation: underlined text indicates added text; strikethrough text indicates deleted text):
Claim 1 is objected to because of “the second face comprises primary bevel” in line 7. This should be corrected to “the second face comprises a primary bevel.”
Claim 1 also recites “a cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face” in line 4. There is no distinction between this “a cutting edge” and “a cutting edge” recited in line 2, which makes the claim language confusing. Examiner suggests changing this to “a second cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face.”
Claim 3 is objected to because of “a first material (or comprises” in lines 1-2. This should be corrected to “a first material
Claim 4 is objected to because of “diamond like carbon (DLC)” in line 19. This should be corrected to “diamond-like carbon (DLC).”
Claim 5 is objected to because of “a material selected from the group consisting of” in lines 1-2. This should be corrected to “a material selected from a
Claim 5 is also objected to because of “tetrahedral amorphous carbon, and combinations thereof” in lines 8-9. This should be corrected to “tetrahedral amorphous carbon, or combinations thereof.” This correction is necessary since only a singular material is recited to be selected from the group of listed materials.
Claim 5 is also objected to because of “diamond like carbon (DLC) in lines 7-8. This should be corrected to diamond-like carbon (DLC).”
Claim 6 is objected to because of “more preferably at least 5 GPa a hardness of at least 20 GPa” in lines 8-9. This should be corrected to “more preferably at least 5 GPa, and/or a hardness of at least 20 GPa.”
Claim 7 is objected to because of “more preferably less than 20 nm, an average grain size” in lines 4-5. This should be corrected to “more preferably less than 20 nm, and/or an average grain size.”
Claim 7 is also objected to because of “d50 of the fine-crystalline diamond” in line 5. This should be corrected to “d50 of the nano-crystalline diamond” for consistency in language.
Claim 8 is objected to because of “diamond-like carbon (DLC) and combinations thereof” in line 5. This should be corrected to “diamond-like carbon (DLC) and/or combinations thereof.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of “is selected from the group consisting of” in line 2. This should be corrected to “is selected from a group consisting of.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of “…more preferably from 1 to 3 μm and/or the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface…” in lines 3-6. The lack of punctuation in this claim makes the use of “and/or” unclear. Examiner suggests amending this claim to make the limitations of what exactly is the alternative evident. For example, “more preferably from 1 to 3 μm; and/or the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface…”
Claim 11 is also objected to because of “being the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface” in lines 1-3. This should be corrected to “being a dimension projected onto the first surface and/or a imaginary extension of the first surface.”
Claim 11 is also objected to because of “to the first line from 0.1 to 7 μm” in line 3. This should be corrected to “to the first line ranging 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 1-16 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 cutting edges having an asymmetric cross-section…" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as previously in line 2 only one cutting edge “a cutting edge” is recited. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edges” in line 3 as “a cutting edge” recited in line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cutting edge along at least a portion of a perimeter of the aperture, the cutting edges having an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape with a first face, a second face opposed to the first face and a cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face” in lines 2-4. This limitation is unclear because it reads as the cutting edge of the aperture has a first face, a second face, and another cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face, indicating that the cutting edge has a cutting edge. The figures do not give any more clarity on whether the first face, the second face, and the other cutting edge are structures of the aperture or the whole cutting element. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation in its entirety as “A cutting element comprising: a substrate with at least one aperture with a cutting edge along at least a portion of a perimeter of the aperture, , second face opposed to the first face and a cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face.”
Examiner is interpreting claim 1 in this manner due to the nature of the bevels and the lack of indication of any bevel on the aperture. Therefore, examiner is interpreting the aperture is its own structure, separate from the first face and the second face where the bevels are located.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intersection of the first face and the second face" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is no previous mention of any intersection. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as any intersection of the first face and the second face.
Claim 1 recites “the cutting edge” in line 11. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in line 2 and line 3. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 1 recites “its tangent” in lines 13-14. It is unclear as to which component “its” is referring to. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “its” to be the primary bevel.
Claim 1 recites “at the cutting edge” in line 14. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in line 2 and line 3. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “at the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tangent of the secondary bevel" in line 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the same tangent as in lines 13-14 or a different tangent. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as a second tangent.
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 2 recites the broad recitation “a thickness of 20 to 1000 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 30 to 500 μm” and “more preferably 50 to 300 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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 2 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “a thickness of 20 to 1000 μm.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first material comprises or consists of… adamantine carbon and combinations thereof” in lines 1 and 20-21. However, in the specifications, it recites “The first material preferably comprises or consists of a material selected from the group consisting of” on pg. 6, lines 10-11. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the first material comprises of every single material listed in claim 4 or of one material out of all the materials listed. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting claim 4 as the first material comprises of one material out of all the materials listed.
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 the broad recitation “metals”, and the claim also recites “preferably titanium, nickel, chromium… particular steel” 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 4 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “metals.”
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 the broad recitation “glass ceramics”, and the claim also recites “preferably aluminum-containing glass ceramics” 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 4 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “glass ceramic.”
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 the broad recitation “hard metals”, and the claim also recites “preferably sintered carbide hard metals, such as tungsten carbide or titanium carbide bonded with cobalt or nickel” 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 4 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “hard metals.”
Claim 5 recites “diamond like carbon (DLC) like tetrahedral amorphous carbon” in lines 7-8. It is unclear as to what material this is reciting and there are no instances of “tetrahedral amorphous carbon” mentioned in the Specification. Therefore, this renders claim 5 indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as just “diamond like carbon (DLC).”
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 5 recites the broad recitation “oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides”, and the claim also recites “preferably aluminum nitride, chromium nitride… cubic boron nitride” 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 5 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides.”
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 5 recites the broad recitation “carbon”, and the claim also recites “preferably diamond, nano-crystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC)” 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 5 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “carbon."
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 6 recites the broad recitation “a thickness of 0.15 to 20 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 2 to 15 μm and more preferably 3 to 12 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 6 also recites the broad recitation “a modulus of elasticity of less than 1200 GPa”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 900 GPa, more preferably less than 750 GPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 6 also recites the broad recitation “a transverse rupture stress σ0 of at least 1 GPa”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 2.5 GPa, more preferably at least 5 GPa” 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 6 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “a thickness of 0.15 to 20 μm”, “a modulus of elasticity of less than 1200 GPa”, and “a transverse rupture stress σ0 of at least 1 GPa.”
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 7 recites the broad recitation “an average surface roughness RRMS of less than 100 nm”, and the claim also recites “less than 50 nm, more preferably less than 20 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 7 also recites the broad recitation “an average grain size d50 of the fine-crystalline diamond of 1 to 100 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 5 to 90 nm, more preferably from 7 to 30 nm, and even more preferably 10 to 20 nm” 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 7 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “an average surface roughness RRMS of less than 100 nm” and “an average grain size d50 of the fine-crystalline diamond of 1 to 100 nm.”
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 8 recites the broad recitation “a low-friction material”, and the claim also recites “preferably selected from the group consisting of fluoropolymer materials like PTFE… and combinations thereof” 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 8 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “a low-friction material.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein it is preferred that the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm2 to 25 mm2.” Because of the use of the term “preferred”, it is unclear as to whether or not this limitation is actually necessary with the invention or not. For examiner purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as necessary.
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 9 recites the broad recitation “the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm2 to 25 mm2”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 1 mm2 to 15 mm2, more preferably from 2 mm2 to 12 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 9 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm2 to 25 mm2.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein it is preferred that θ1 ≥ θ2.” Because of the use of the term “preferred”, it is unclear as to whether or not this limitation is actually necessary with the invention or not. For examiner purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as necessary.
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 “the first wedge angle θ1 ranges from 10° to 90°”, and the claim also recites “preferably 12° to 75°, more preferably 15° to 45°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 10 also recites the broad recitation “the second wedge angle θ2 ranges from 0° to 30°”, and the claim also recites “preferably 5° to 20°, more preferably 8° to 15°” 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 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “the first wedge angle θ1 ranges from 10° to 90°” and “the second wedge angle θ2 ranges from 0° to 30°.”
Claim 11 recites “of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the first line” in lines 2-3. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 11 recites “of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second line” in lines 5-6. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
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 11 recites the broad recitation “a length d1… and/or the imaginary extension… from 0.1 to 7 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 0.5 to 5 μm, more preferably from 1 to 3 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 11 also recites the broad recitation “the dimension projected… has a length d2 which ranges from 5 to 150 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 10 to 100 μm, more preferably from 30 to 80 μm” 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 11 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “from 0.1 to 7 μm” and “from 5 to 150 μm.”
Claim 12 recites “wherein the cutting edge has a tip radius” in line 1. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
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 12 recites the broad recitation “a tip radius of less than 200 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 100 nm and more preferably less than 50 nm” 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 12 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “a tip radius of less than 200 nm.”
Claim 13 recites “its tangent” in lines 3-4. It is unclear as to which component “its” is referring to. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “its” to be the tertiary bevel.
Claim 13 recites “the third wedge angle θ3 ranges preferably from 1° to 60°.” Because of the use of the term “preferred”, it is unclear as to whether or not this limitation is actually necessary with the invention or not. For examiner purposes, examiner is interpreting this limitation as necessary.
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 13 recites the broad recitation “the third wedge angle θ3 ranges preferably from 1° to 60°”, and the claim also recites “more preferably 10° to 55°, and even more preferably 30° to 46°, and most preferably is 45°” 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 13 as merely exemplary and will be examining the limitations as “the third wedge angle θ3 ranges preferably from 1° to 60°.”
Claim 14 recites “wherein the cutting edge” in line 1. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "arranged at the boundary surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the boundary surface” as any surface at the boundary of the first material and the second material.
Claim 15 recites “the quaternary bevel extending from the cutting edge” in line 3. It is unclear as to which cutting edge this limitation is referring to, as there are two different aforementioned cutting edges recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the cutting edge” to be the same as “a cutting edge” recited in claim 1, line 4.
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 1-5, 8-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130014396 A1 by Ju et al. (hereinafter “Ju”) in view of US 5983756 A by Orloff and US 10500748 B2 by Anderson et al. (hereinafter “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 1, Ju discloses a cutting element (Ju, Fig. 2, razor blade 10) comprising: a substrate (Ju, Fig. 2, substrate 11), a first face (see Examiner annotated Ju Figure 2, hereinafter “EAJF2”; first face), a second face (EAJF2, second face) opposed to the first face and a cutting edge (EAJF2, cutting edge) at the intersection of the first face and the second face, wherein: the first face (EAJF2, first face) comprises a first surface (EAJF2, first surface), the second face (EAJF2, second face) comprises primary bevel (EAJF2, primary bevel) having a convex or straight cross-sectional shape (see Ju Figure 2) and a secondary bevel (EAJF2, secondary bevel), with a first line (EAJF2, first line) connecting the primary bevel and the secondary bevel, the primary bevel extending from the cutting edge (EAJF2, cutting edge) to the first line (EAJF2, first line), the secondary bevel (EAJF2, secondary bevel) extending from the first line (EAJF2, first line) to a second line (EAJF2, second line), a first wedge θ1 (Ju, para. 25, line 6, “facet angle α between first facets 14 and 16”) between the first surface and the primary bevel or its tangent at the cutting edge, a second wedge angle θ2 (see Examiner annotated Ju Figure 2 Second Angle, hereinafter “EAJF2SA”, second wedge angle) between the first surface and the tangent (EAJF2SA, second tangent) of the second bevel at the line. Ju does not explicitly disclose at least one aperture nor that the secondary bevel is concave.
Orloff, however, does teach a cutting element (Orloff, Fig. 4, blade 20) comprising at least one aperture (Orloff, Fig. 4, apertures 21) with a cutting edge (Orloff, Fig. 4, blade edge 25) along at least a portion of a perimeter of the aperture, said cutting edge having an asymmetric cross-sectional shape (Orloff, col. 1, lines 22-25, “While the dimensions and shape of the actual apertures vary throughout the examples, the methods for producing the apertures in these examples remain virtually the same; Orloff, col. 2, lines 47-48, “Virtually any desired number, shape or orientation of dimples may be produced”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add at least one aperture to the cutting element of Ju as taught by Orloff in order to allow for multidirectional shaving for more adaptable use (Orloff, col. 1, lines 13-18, “razors have been developed with cutting edges which are not straight, as with most traditional blades, but are circular or otherwise rounded apertures located within the body of the blade… allowing the user to shave in multiple directions, as opposed to the single direction of most blades”).
Furthermore, Anderson, which is pertinent to the art of improving blades and the cutting edge’s overall performance, does teach the secondary bevel having a concave cross-sectional shape (see Examiner annotated Anderson Figure 5, hereinafter “EAAF5”; secondary bevel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ju to have a secondary bevel that is concave as taught by Anderson in order to improve the shaving ability of the blade by balancing sharpness with durability (Anderson, col. 1, lines 29-33, “An ideal blade balances sharpness with durability. Such balancing is dependent on the process used to form the blade…”; Anderson, col. 6, lines 55-64, “By use of a variable permeability mask, metal portions of a metal base can be selectively removed… can selectively control etching, such as the rate of etching, to shape the metal base 20 into a blade 2 having a preferred profile (e.g., balancing sharpness and thickness/durability); Anderson, col. 3, lines 30-36, “first side 4 has a complex profile including an inflection point 6 between a distal convex portion of first side 4 and a proximal concave portion of first side 4… complex profile of first side 4 including inflection point 6 is formed from a multi-stage etching process”).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
810
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
470
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ju does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the substrate.
Anderson, however, which is pertinent to the art of improving blades and the cutting edge’s overall performance, does teach the substrate has a thickness of 20 to 1000 μm (Anderson, para. 28, “The method 14 presumes the provision of a metal base, such as a sheet of metal…; the thickness of the metal base may be less than about 1000 micrometers, such as less than about 500 micrometers… metal bases with thicknesses larger than 1000 micrometers or smaller than 250 micrometers may be used”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to vary the thickness of the substrate of Ju to range between 20 to 1000 μm as taught by Anderson as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, razor blades) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Anderson, para. 42, “The combined use of solid masks, variable permeability masks… to shape the metal base 20 into a blade 2 having a preferred profile (e.g. balancing sharpness and thickness/durability”).
Regarding claim 3, Ju discloses the substrate comprises a first material or comprises a first material (Ju, para. 3, lines 1-2, “formed of a suitable substrate material such as stainless steel”) and a second material adjacent to the first material (Ju, Fig. 2, coating 30; Ju, para. 20, “a coating 30 joined to the substrate 11).
Regarding claim 4, Ju discloses the first material comprises or consists of: metals (Ju, para. 3, lines 1-2, “formed of a suitable substrate material such as stainless steel”), preferably titanium, nickel, chromium, niobium, tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, vanadium, platinum, germanium, iron, and alloys thereof, in particular steel, ceramics comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of carbon, nitrogen, boron, oxygen and combinations thereof, preferably silicon carbide, zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, boron nitride, tantalum nitride, TiAlN, TiCN, and/or TiB2, glass ceramics; preferably aluminum-containing glass-ceramics, composite materials made from ceramic materials in a metallic matrix (cermets), hard metals, preferably sintered carbide hard metals, such as tungsten carbide or titanium carbide bonded with cobalt or nickel, silicon or germanium, preferably with the crystalline plane parallel to the second face orientation <100>, <110>, <111> or <211>, single crystalline materials, glass or sapphire, polycrystalline or amorphous silicon or germanium, mono- or polycrystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC), adamantine carbon or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Ju discloses the second material (Ju, para. 20, “The coating 30 shown includes adhesive layer 34, hard coating layer 36, and overcoat layer 38”) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides (Ju, para. 22, “Hard coating layer or layers 265 provides improved strength, corrosion resistance and shaving ability and can be made from… nitrides… carbides…, oxides…”), preferably aluminum nitride, chromium nitride, titanium nitride, titanium carbon nitride, titanium aluminum nitride, cubic boron nitride, boron aluminum magnesium, carbon, preferably diamond, nano-crystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Ju discloses the first material and/or the second material are coated at least in regions with a low-friction material (Ju, para. 24, “Lubricious material 40 may be used to provide reduced friction”; Ju, Fig. 1, lubricious material 40), preferably selected from the group consisting of fluoropolymer materials like PTFE, parylene, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene, polypropylene, polymethyl methacrylate, graphite, diamond-like carbon (DLC) and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 9, the Ju/Orloff/Anderson combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Anderson discloses the at least one aperture has a form which is selected from the group consisting of circular (Anderson, Abstract, “a blade having circular apertures with sharpened edges”), ellipsoidal, square, triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, hexagonal, octagonal or combinations thereof (Orloff, col. 1, lines 22-25, “While the dimensions and shape of the actual apertures vary throughout the examples, the methods for producing the apertures in these examples remain virtually the same; Orloff, col. 2, lines 47-48, “Virtually any desired number, shape or orientation of dimples may be produced”), wherein itis preferred that the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm2 to 25 mm2 (Anderson, col. 2, lines 24-26, “the desired dimensions of an aperture width 21 of approximately 2.5 mm”), preferably from 1 mm2 to 15 mm2, more preferably from 2 mm2 to 12 mm2.
Note: Area of a circle = πr2 = 19.63 mm2.
Regarding claim 10, Ju discloses that the first wedge angle θ1 ranges from 10° to 90° (Ju, para. 25, line 17, “angle α ranges from 90° to 135°), preferably 12° to 75°, more preferably 15° to 45° and/or the second wedge angle θ2 ranges from 0° to 30°, preferably 5° to 20°, more preferably 8° to 15°; wherein it is preferred that θ1 ≥ θ2 (EAJF2SA, second wedge angle = 117° < angle α = 90° to 135°”).
Regarding claim 11, Ju discloses the primary bevel has a length di 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 line (Ju, Fig. 3, distance 52; EAJF2, first line) from 0.1 to 7 μm (see Examiner annotated Ju Figure 3, hereinafter “EAJF3”; T2 & c = 1.08-1.25 μm), preferably from 0.5 to 5 pm, more preferably from 1 to 3 pm; and/or the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second line has a length d2 which ranges from 5 to 150 pm, preferably from 10 to 100 pm, more preferably from 30 to 80 pm.
PNG
media_image5.png
720
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ju discloses the cutting edge has a tip radius of less than 200 nm (Ju, Abstract, “ a cutting edge being defined by a blade tip having a tip radius of from 50 to 350 angstroms”), preferably less than 100 nm and more preferably less than 50 nm.
Note: 50 angstroms = 5 nm, 350 angstroms = 35 nm
Regarding claim 14, Ju discloses the cutting edge (EAJF2, cutting edge), the primary bevel (EAJC2, primary bevel) and the secondary bevel (EAJF2, secondary bevel) are shaped within the second material (Ju, Fig. 2, coating 30) and/or the second line is arranged at the boundary surface of the first material and the second material.
Regarding claim 15, Ju discloses the first face (EAJF2, first face) comprises a quaternary bevel (EAJF2, quaternary bevel) with: a third line (EAJF2, third line) connecting the quaternary bevel and the first surface, the quaternary bevel extending from the cutting edge (EAJF2, cutting edge) to the third line (EAJF2, third line), a fourth wedge angle θ4 (EAJF2, quaternary wedge angle) between an imaginary extension of the first surface (Ju, Fig. 2, linear extension 14’) and the quaternary bevel (EAJF2, quaternary bevel).
Regarding claim 16, Ju discloses a hair removal device (Ju, para. 5, “Prior blades improved shaving comfort by reductions in tip radii and overall profile cross-section, reducing the tug-and-pull associated with cutting through hair”) comprising the cutting element of claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130014396 A1 by Ju et al. (hereinafter “Ju”) in view of US 5983756 A by Orloff and US 10500748 B2 by Anderson et al. (hereinafter “Anderson”), as evidenced by Examiner provided NPL “Properties: Diamond (C) - Properties and Applications” (hereinafter “Diamond”).
Regarding claim 6, Ju discloses the second material fulfills at least one of the following properties: a thickness of 0.15 to 20 μm (Ju, para. 21, “The adhesive layer may have a thickness from 100 angstroms to 500 angstroms”; Ju, para. 22, “DLC less than 5,000 angstroms, preferably from 300 angstroms to 3,000 angstroms”; Ju, para. 23, “Overcoat layer may have a thickness of from 50 angstroms to 500 angstroms), preferably 2 to 15 pm and more preferably 3 to 12 pm, a modulus of elasticity of less than 1200 GPa, preferably less than 900 GPa, more preferably less than 750 GPa, a transverse rupture stress σ0 of at least 1 GPa, preferably at least 2.5 GPa, more preferably at least 5 GPa, and/or a hardness of at least 20 GPa
Note for thickness range: Adhesive layer: 150 angstroms = 0.015 μm, 350 angstroms = 0.035 μm; Hard coating: 300 angstrom = 0.03 μm, 3000 angstroms = 0.3 μm; Overcoat: 50 angstroms = 0.005 μm, 500 angstroms = 0.05 μm. Therefore range of thickness of second material: 0.05 μm to 0.385 μm.
Furthermore, while not specifically cited by Ju, diamond is listed as one of the potential second materials by Ju. Diamond is determined to have a modulus of elasticity of 1050 GPa, a transverse rupture stress of 3 GPa, and a hardness of 42 GPa as evidenced by Diamond (Diamond, pg. 2, “Young’s Modulus = 1050”; Diamond, pg. 1, “Fracture Toughness = 3”; Diamond, pg. 2, “Hardness = 42000”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130014396 A1 by Ju in view of US 5983756 A by Orloff and US 10500748 B2 by Anderson, as evidenced by Examiner provided NPL “Effect of Deposition Parameters on Wear Particle Size Distribution of DLC Coatings” (hereinafter “Ren”).
Regarding claim 7, Ju discloses the material of the second material is nanocrystalline diamond (Ju, para. 22, “Hard coating layer or layers 36 provides improved strength, corrosion resistance and shaving ability and can be made from fine-, micro-, or nano-crystalline carbon-containing materials (e.g., diamond, amorphous diamond or DLC)”) and fulfills at least one of the following properties: an average surface roughness RRMS of less than 100 nm, less than 50 nm, more preferably less than 20 nm, an average grain size d50 of the fine-crystalline diamond of 1 to 100 nm, preferably from 5 to 90 nm, more preferably from 7 to 30 nm, and even more preferably 10 to 20 nm.
While Ju does not specifically state either of these properties, Ju does cite nanocrystalline diamond, such as DLC, as one of the options for the second material. Diamond-like carbon (DLC) is determined to have an average surface roughness of 0.03 μm (30 nm) for the purposes of coating, as evidenced by Ren (Ren, pg. 1, Abstract, “DLC coatings exhibit a low friction coefficient, and it has the lowest Ra of 30 nm”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130014396 A1 by Ju in view of US 5983756 A by Orloff and US 10500748 B2 by Anderson, and further in view of US 2244053 A by Comstock.
Regarding claim 13, the Ju/Orloff/Anderson combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, the Ju/Orloff/Anderson combination does not explicitly disclose a tertiary bevel or a third wedge angle.
Comstock, however, which is pertinent to the art of known structures of fine edged razor blades, does teach the second face further comprises a straight tertiary bevel (see Examiner annotated Comstock Figure 1, hereinafter known as “EACF1”, tertiary bevel) with: the tertiary bevel extending from the second line rearward (EACF1, tertiary bevel & second line), a third wedge angle θ3 (EACF1, third wedge angle) between the first surface (EACF1, first surface) and the tertiary bevel (7) or its tangent, wherein the third wedge angle θ3 ranges from 1° to 60° (EACF1, tertiary wedge angle = α = 17°).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the razor blade of the Ju/Orloff/Anderson combination to have a tertiary bevel and a third wedge angle as taught by Comstock as a known work in one field of endeavor (in this case, the shape of a razor blade) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Comstock, pg. 4, left column, lines 38-42, “The fine edge of this razor blade can be specifically illustrated by setting forth a range of angles which has been found to exist in razor blades formed according to the process of the present invention”).
PNG
media_image6.png
497
840
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Citations
“Properties: Diamond (C) - Properties and Applications.” AZoM.com, 3 Apr. 2001, www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=262. Accessed 18 Dec. 2025.
Ren, Ying, et al. “Effect of Deposition Parameters on Wear Particle Size Distribution of DLC Coatings.” Diamond and Related Materials, vol. 23, Mar. 2012, pp. 184–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diamond.2011.12.045. Accessed 18 Dec. 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 3514856 A by Camp et al. teaches a cutting element with a primary bevel, a secondary bevel, and a tertiary bevel on a second face.
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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724