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 Examiner acknowledges the cancelation of claim 5 and withdraws the drawing objection of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4, 7, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss (WO 2009/143130 A1) in view of Rosemberg et al. (US 2015/0047202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Krauss teaches a method of forming a razor blade (Krauss; Fig. 4; 50), comprising:
forming a first facet (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) below) on a first surface of a substrate (Krauss; Fig. 5; 70);
forming a second facet (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) below) on a second surface of the substrate, opposite the first surface, the first facet and the second facet converging to define a cutting edge (Krauss; Fig. 5; 72); and
laser ablating a first plurality of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) below) with a depth between about 0.01 µm and about 20 µm on the first facet (Krauss; Pg. 3 line 27 – Pg. 4 line 3) and wherein laser ablating the first plurality of elements comprises laser ablating the first plurality of elements at an increasing depth with increasing distance from the cutting edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) below), each of the elements taught by Krauss has an increasing depth as the distance from the cutting edge increases for a portion of the element which meets the limitation, additionally Krauss teaches that the elements may have a tapered cross section (Krauss; Pg. 4; Lines 3-4).
Krauss does not teach the first plurality of elements being spaced apart from the cutting edge about 0.05 µm to about 2 µm. However, it should be noted that while Krauss does not teach a specific distance for the elements from the cutting edge Krauss does teach that some spacing from the cutting edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) below). As the purpose elements taught by Krauss are to increase hydrophobicity and decrease friction relative to the hair being cut or skin surface (Krauss; Pg. 2; Lines 23-26) it would therefore be desirable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to ensure these elements were positioned on the blade where the hair or skin were expected to be in contact. Further, Rosemberg teaches a razor blade (Rosemberg; Fig. 1; 12) with an electrical contact (Rosemberg; Fig. 1; 16) wherein the electrical contact is positioned 300 µm to 2000 µm from the cutting edge (Rosemberg; Fig. 1, 14; P. 0043) this is desirable in this case as to prevent contact between the skin and the electrical contact (Rosemberg; P. 0043). It should be noted that while Rosemberg refers to a “cutting edge” this appears to be a facet of the blade. The combination of Krauss and Rosemberg shows that a worker in the art would know the limits of the distance from the cutting edge where the hair or skin would be in contact with the blade and that it would be desirable to ensure elements meant to be in contact with the skin or hair were positioned within this range. As the instant disclosure does not provide a nexus of criticality for the claimed range of the distance between the cutting edge and the plurality of elements and the combination of Krauss and Rosemberg teach that it would be desirable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to know where the blade is in contact with the skin or hair to ensure that elements meant to contact the skin or hair are positioned such that they do contact the skin and to ensure that elements meant to not be in contact with the skin are positioned such that they do not come into contact with the skin. As such, the claimed range of the distance is a result-effective variable as the claimed distance is in an area known in the art to be in contact with the skin during shaving and it is known in the art to provide a plurality of elements to provide increased hydrophobicity and decreased friction relative to the hair being cut or skin surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising laser ablating a second plurality of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) above) with a depth between about 0.01 µm and about 20 µm on the second facet (Krauss; Pg. 3 line 27 – Pg. 4 line 3).
Krauss in view of Rosemberg as modified does not teach, the second plurality of elements being spaced apart from the cutting edge by about 0.05 µm to about 2 µm. However, it should be noted that while Krauss does not teach a specific distance for the elements from the cutting edge Krauss does teach that some spacing from the cutting edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Krauss) above). As the purpose elements taught by Krauss are to increase hydrophobicity and decrease friction relative to the hair being cut or skin surface (Krauss; Pg. 2; Lines 23-26) it would therefore be desirable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to ensure these elements were positioned on the blade where the hair or skin were expected to be in contact. Additionally, Rosemberg teaches a razor blade (Rosemberg; Fig. 1; 12) with an electrical contact (Rosemberg; Fig. 1; 16) wherein the electrical contact is positioned 300 µm to 2000 µm from the cutting edge (Rosemberg; Fig. 1, 14; P. 0043) this is desirable in this case as to prevent contact between the skin and the electrical contact (Rosemberg; P. 0043). It should be noted that while Rosemberg refers to a “cutting edge” this appears to be a facet of the blade. The combination of Krauss and Rosemberg shows that a worker in the art would know the limits of the distance from the cutting edge where the hair or skin would be in contact with the blade and that it would be desirable to ensure elements meant to be in contact with the skin or hair were positioned within this range. As the instant disclosure does not provide a nexus of criticality for the claimed range of the distance between the cutting edge and the plurality of elements and the combination of Krauss and Rosemberg teach that it would be desirable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to know where the blade is in contact with the skin or hair to ensure that elements meant to contact the skin or hair are positioned such that they do contact the skin and to ensure that elements meant to not be in contact with the skin are positioned such that they do not come into contact with the skin. As such, the claimed range of the distance is a result-effective variable as the claimed distance is in an area known in the art to be in contact with the skin during shaving and it is known in the art to provide a plurality of elements to provide increased hydrophobicity and decreased friction relative to the hair being cut or skin surface.
Regarding claim 3, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches the method of claim 2, wherein laser ablating the second plurality of elements comprises offsetting the second plurality of elements on the second facet from the first plurality of elements on the first facet, as the applicant has defined the “offset” as the pluralities of elements being “not directly across from each other or do not overlap” the first plurality of elements and second plurality of elements being on opposite facets as is taught by Krauss in view of Rosemberg meets this definition as the elements are not directly across from each other and do not overlap as each are on separate facets and are facing different directions.
Regarding claim 4, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a conforming first coating (Krauss; Fig. 5; 80) covering at least the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 7, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein laser ablating the first plurality of elements comprises spacing the first plurality of elements at a distance of about 1 µm to about 50 µm from each other (Krauss; Pg. 4; Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein laser ablating the first plurality of elements comprises laser ablating a plurality of dimples into a top surface of the first facet, Krauss teaches that the plurality of elements may be a combination of regular shapes (Krauss; Pg. 3; Lines 24-25), random combinations of irregular or random shapes (Krauss; Pg. 3; Lines 26-27), or a regular or irregular series of elongated elements (Krauss; Pg. 4; Lines 14-16), this shows that it is well known in the art to shape these elements however may be desirable. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shape of the plurality of elements taught by Krauss in view of Rosemberg such that the plurality of elements were dimples or any other desirable shape as it is well known in the art to shape such pluralities of elements to decrease friction while shaving.
Regarding claim 19, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches a method of making a shaving razor with a razor blade formed by the method of claim 1, the method comprising: mounting the razor blade (Krauss; Fig. 4; 50) on a blade platform (Krauss; Fig. 4; 10).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss (WO 2009/143130 A1) in view of Rosemberg (US 2015/0047202 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicholas (US 9,925,678 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches the method of claim 1.
Krauss in view of Rosemberg as modified does not teach wherein laser ablating the first plurality of elements comprises forming a first textured surface extending about 2 µm to about 40 µm in a direction perpendicular to the cutting edge. While Krauss in view of Rosemberg does not a specific range for the extension of a plurality of elements Krauss does teach that the plurality of elements may cover the substantially an entirety of a facet (Krauss; Pg. 4; Lines 20-22).
Nicholas teaches a razor blade (Nicholas; Fig. 3C; 20) wherein a skin contacting element (Nicholas; Fig. 3C; 34) is positioned on the blade and extends a distance (Nicholas; Fig. 3C; D) of about 0.2 mm or 200 microns (Nicholas; Col. 7; Lines 1-13) from a blade edge. While the skin contacting element taught by Nicholas is different than both the plurality of elements of the instant invention and the plurality of element taught by Krauss it should be appreciated that they all serve a similar purpose (Nicholas; Col. 7; Lines 55-64). So, while the elements are different structurally, they share a similar purpose and, as such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to such teachings for positioning an element meant to be in contact with the skin to help reduce friction. Additionally, the applicant defines “about” as “within typical manufacturing and measuring tolerances”. There is no common standard for “typical manufacturing and measuring tolerances” and will depend instead on the tool available to a worker in the art at the time thus varying widely. However, the teachings of Nicholas show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider how far from a blade edge an element should extend to ensure contact with the skin of a user in addition to the distance from the blade edge which is Krauss in view of Rosemberg teaches. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the first plurality of elements taught by Krauss in view of Rosemberg such that the plurality of elements extended any distance along the facet of the blade as doing so would be a matter of routine optimization as Nicholas teaches that it is known in the art to position a skin contacting element along a facet such that it contacts the skin of a user and to extend the element to ensure skin contact.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record for claim 1 is improper. The Examiner disagrees, however during an updated search of the prior art a piece of art was found that specifically teaches laser ablating elements onto the facets of a razor blade to provide increased hydrophobicity and decreased friction relative to the hair being cut or skin surface which reads on the claimed method and associated structure of claim 1 and renders the applicants assertions regarding Hamada, Daskal, Kramer, Floter, and Tateyama moot. Likewise claims 2-4, 7, 12, 17, and 19 are now rejected over Krauss in view of Rosemberg.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights