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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 14, “the total aperture area” should be amended to read “a total aperture area”
Claim 6:
“an average cross-sectional substrate area” should be amended to read “the average cross-sectional substrate area”
“Ax” should be amended to read “Ax”
Claim 7: “the total sheet area” should be amended to read “a total sheet area”
Claim 9: “the transparency” should be amended to read “a transparency”
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.
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation regarding a second material is unclear because claim 1 appears to have made inclusion of a second material optional. Specifically, claim 1 recites at lines 20-21 “wherein the sheet comprises a first material or a first material and a second material” – thus, it appears that claim 18 requires a limitation that was previously made optional. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to require both a first material and a second material.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard (US 4984365) in view of Floter (US 20120276826).
Regarding claim 1, Leonard discloses a skin treatment sheet (foil 20; see fig. 1) comprising a substrate with a plurality of apertures (26 total circular apertures 22 are shown; see fig. 2), wherein: the sheet has a first surface (top surface of foil 20, see annotated portion of fig. 3) and an opposing second surface (opposite bottom surface of foil 20, see annotated portion of fig. 3), the apertures have a first inner perimeter at the first surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3) and a second inner perimeter at the opposing second surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3), at least two apertures have a cutting edge along at least a portion of the first inner perimeter (the plurality of edges 24 are sharpened shaving edges, see col. 2, lines 25-26), each aperture has a closest adjacent aperture which is connected by a shortest distance line b1i on the first surface (apertures 22 are about 2mm in diameter with a center distance of about 3 mm, therefore the space between apertures is approximately 1 mm, see col. 2, lines 41-45) with a vertical cross-sectional substrate area axi along the distance line b1i (assuming a cutting angle of 30°, the area of the triangular portion of the cross-section can be calculated to equal 0.01 mm2; the rectangular portion has an area of 0.06 mm2; therefore, the area axi = 0.06 + 2(0.01), which results in a total area of 0.08 mm2), the skin treatment sheet has an average cross-sectional substrate area Ax defined as the average of all cross-sectional substrate areas axi (apertures 22 are uniformly spaced apart such that they all have approximately the same cross-sectional area, which is 0.08 m2), the skin treatment sheet has a stability ST (= 0.00098), defined by the ratio of the average cross-sectional substrate area Ax (0.08 mm2) and the total aperture area A1 (= 26 x (3.14 x 12) which is 81.64 mm2), the skin treatment sheet has a total cutting length L1 (= 26 x (3.14 x 2) which is 163.28 mm), wherein the product of stability and total cutting length ST×L1 ranges from 0.01 to 10 mm (= 0.16 mm).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leonard does not explicitly disclose wherein the skin treatment sheet is rigid and does not deform in use to provide consistent blade geometry; wherein the sheet comprises a first material or a first material and a second material adjacent to the first material; wherein the first material is selected from the group consisting of: ceramics comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of carbon, nitrogen, boron, oxygen or combinations thereof, glass ceramics, composite materials made from ceramic materials in a metallic matrix (cermets), silicon or germanium, single crystalline materials, glass or sapphire, polycrystalline or amorphous silicon or germanium, mono- or polycrystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC), adamantine carbon and combinations thereof.
Floter discloses wherein the skin treatment sheet is rigid and does not deform in use to provide consistent blade geometry (including a diamond layer on top of a reinforcing substrate results in a rigid structure that does not deform during normal use; see paragraphs [0033-0034]); wherein the sheet comprises a first material or a first material and a second material adjacent to the first material (a diamond layer (second material) may be disposed on a substrate material (first material); see paragraph [0032]); wherein the first material is selected from the group consisting of: ceramics comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of carbon, nitrogen, boron, oxygen or combinations thereof, glass ceramics, composite materials made from ceramic materials in a metallic matrix (cermets), silicon or germanium, single crystalline materials, glass or sapphire, polycrystalline or amorphous silicon or germanium, mono- or polycrystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC), adamantine carbon and combinations thereof (the substrate may be made of carbon- and/or nitrogen- or boron-containing ceramics, specifically silicon carbine, silicon nitride, boron nitride, TiAlN, TiCN and/or TiB2, glass ceramics, composites made of ceramic materials in a metallic matrix/cermets, silicon or germanium, glass or sapphire, mono- or polycrystalline diamond and/or diamond-like carbon layers; see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Leonard in view of Floter to select the first material from one of those listed above. Floter discloses that the above-mentioned materials can improve the reinforcing capability of the blade, and that coating a substrate with a layer of diamond results in cost savings since the diamond layer is expensive and complex to produce (see paragraph [0033]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same benefits by using the same materials in the device of Leonard. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Lastly, as modified to include the above materials, it is understood that the treatment sheet will be rigid such that it does not deform in use since it will be made from a strong, reinforcing material (see paragraph [0032]) and a layer of diamond.
Regarding claim 2, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the product of stability and total cutting length ST×L1 is from 0.05 to 5 mm (= 0.16 mm).
Regarding claim 3, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the stability ST is in the range from 1×10-4 to 1×10-1 (0.16 is within the range of 0.0001 and 0.1).
Regarding claim 4, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the closest adjacent apertures have a shortest distance b1i which is in the range of 0.1 to 3.5 mm (apertures 22 are in rows where the centers are spaced about 3 mm from each other; see col. 2, lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 5, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the closest adjacent apertures are connected by a shortest distance line b2i on the second surface and the ratio b1i:b2i is in the range of 1.0 to 10.0 (= 1/0.6 which equals 1.67).
Regarding claim 6, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the skin treatment sheet has an average cross-sectional substrate area Ax in the range from 0.01 to 1 mm2 (0.08 mm2).
Regarding claim 8, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the total aperture area A1 is from 10 to 400 mm² (= 26 x (3.14 x 12) which is 81.64 mm2; 26 uniform apertures with individual areas of 3.14 mm2).
Regarding claim 9, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the transparency of the sheet is from 5 to 60 % (= 81.64/516, which equals approximately 16%).
Regarding claim 10, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the skin treatment sheet has an outer perimeter R with a rim width W1 (see annotated portion of fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
236
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Leonard as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the rim width W1 is in a range from 0.1 to 5.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Leonard to have a rim width W1 in a range of 0.1 to 5.0 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Leonard as modified would not perform differently if modified such that the rim width W1 is in a range of 0.1 to 5.0 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the first inner perimeter is smaller than the second inner perimeter (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
219
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the sheet has a thickness of 20 to 1000 µm (foil 20 is about 0.1 mm thick which is 100 µm; see col. 2, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 13, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the substrate has from 5 to 200 apertures (foil 20 contains 26 total apertures, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Floter further discloses wherein the cutting edge has a tip radius TR of 1 to 200 nm (the rounded radius r of the diamond layer at the cutting edge is between 3 and 100 nm; see paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Leonard in view of Floter to include wherein the cutting edge has a tip radius TR of 1 to 200 nm. Floter further discloses that it is advantageous to have the radius coordinated to the average grain size of the diamond layer (see paragraph [0030]), which is preferably between 5 and 100 nm (see paragraph [0026]). In the instant case, the average grain size is most preferably from 10 to 20 nm (see pg. 15, lines 14-16 instant specification). As modified, the device of Leonard includes a diamond layer – thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also include the coordinated tip radius.
Regarding claim 17, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Floter further discloses a second material (diamond layer; see paragraphs [0032-0033]), wherein the second material is selected from the group consisting of: oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides, boron aluminum magnesium, carbon, diamond, poly-crystalline diamond, nano-crystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC) like tetrahedral amorphous carbon, and combinations thereof (a diamond layer is disposed on a substrate material, see paragraphs [0032-0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Leonard in view of Floter to select the first material from one of those listed above. Floter discloses that the above-mentioned materials can improve the reinforcing capability of the blade, and that coating a substrate with a layer of diamond results in cost savings since the diamond layer is expensive and complex to produce (see paragraph [0033]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same benefits by using the same materials in the device of Leonard. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Regarding claim 18, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Floter further discloses wherein the cutting edge is shaped in the second material (the cutting edge is configured in the diamond layer which is disposed on a substrate material; see paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses wherein the apertures have a shape which is selected from the group consisting of circular, ellipsoidal, square, triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, hexagonal, octagonal and combinations thereof (apertures 22 are circular in shape, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified further discloses a skin treatment device (razor 8; see fig. 1) comprising the skin treatment sheet of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard (US 4984365) in view of Floter (US 20120276826), and further in view of Lazarchik (WO 9202342).
Regarding claim 7, Leonard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Leonard as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the total sheet area S is from 100 to 800 mm².
Lazarchik discloses wherein the total sheet area S is from 100 to 800 mm² (metal foil strip 16 is 4.3 cm long and 1.2 cm wide and therefore has an area of 5.16 cm2 or 516 mm2; see pg. 5, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Leonard in view of Lazarchik 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). Lazarchik discloses length and width values which can be used to calculate the total sheet area (see pg. 5, lines 11-14). Further modifying Leonard to include a sheet area as taught by Lazarchik would not impede the function of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Floter provides no motivation to incorporate hard materials into the device of Leonard in a manner that would eliminate Leonard’s functional characteristic of flexibility. First, Examiner notes that the foil as disclosed by Leonard is described as a “thin flexible metal foil member with a plurality of foil apertures” (see col. 1, lines 12-13). However, it does not appear that this is a key characteristic of the device that is necessary for the foil to conform to the skin, as suggested by Applicant (see pg. 3 of remarks). As presently interpreted, the device of Leonard would still be capable of cutting hair, even if including rigid materials in the foil prevents deformation of the foil.
Further, it is understood that making the skin treatment sheet from a first material and a second material, both of which are rigid, would yield a skin treatment sheet that is rigid and does not deform in use as required by claim 1. If the skin treatment sheet is made entirely from these two materials, it is understood that during use, the normal forces that the skin treatment sheet would experience during a shaving operation would not be strong enough to cause deformation of the skin treatment sheet. Therefore, as best understood, the skin treatment sheet as modified would eliminate Leonard’s characteristic of flexibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 5185933 to Messinger, drawn to a shaving foil; US 3815232 to Liska, drawn to a shear foil for a dry shaver; and US 5604983 to Simms, drawn to a razor system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights