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 amendment to claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conforming first coating must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-4, 7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (US 2004/0143975 A1), hereafter known as Hamda, in view of Daskal et al. (US 2005/0188548 A1), hereafter known as Daskal, Kramer (US 5,121,660 A), Flöter et al. (US 2012/0276826 A1), hereafter known as Floter, and Tateyama et al. (US 10,173,408 B2), hereafter known as Tateyama.
Regarding claim 1, Hamada teaches a method of forming a razor blade (Hamada, Fig. 1A-9B, 1), comprising:
forming a first facet (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 13) on a first surface of a substrate (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 11);
a second surface (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 12), opposite the first surface, the first facet and the second surface converging to define a cutting edge (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 10);
and
a plurality of elements (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 50) with a depth on a second surface (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 12), the second plurality of elements being spaced apart from the cutting edge (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 10).
Hamada does not teach a second facet on the second surface of the substrate, the first facet and the second facet converging to define a cutting edge, laser ablating a first plurality of elements with a depth between about 0.01 µm and about 20 µm on the first facet, the first plurality of elements being spaced apart from the cutting edge about 0.05 µm to about 2 µm, 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.
Kramer teaches a razor blade (Kramer, Fig. 2, 10) wherein the razor blade comprises a second facet (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Kramer) below) on a second surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Kramer) below) of the substrate (Kramer, Col. 1 line 62 – Col. 2 line 2), the first facet and the second facet converging to define a cutting edge (Kramer, Fig. 2, 30). Having a second facet allows for a lower radius cutting edge with improved shaving characteristics (Kramer, Col. 1 line 62 – Col. 2 line 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the razor blade of Hamada to include a second facet as taught by Kramer to improving the shaving characteristics of the cutting edge of the blade.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate the surface of a blade (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a plurality of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into the blade (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
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 method taught by Hamada to include laser ablating a plurality of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the blade.
Floter teaches a razor blade (Floter, Fig. 1a-6b, P. 0041) wherein a plurality of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6a (Floter) below) is formed on a facet (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6a (Floter) below) of a surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6a (Floter) below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to modify the position of any plurality of elements taught by Hamada such that the plurality of elements were positioned on any facet or surface of a razor blade in view of Floter as such a rearrangement of parts would not alter the function of the plurality of elements of Hamada which are intended to contact the skin of a user to decrease fiction (Hamada, P. 0050 and see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Hamada further teaches a depth for a plurality of elements of 0.05 mm (Hamada, P. 0051) or 50 µm. While the depth taught by Hamada is not in the claimed range 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 depth of any plurality of elements such that the depth of the plurality of elements were any desirable depth as deciding the depth for any feature of a razor only requires routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)).
Hamada also teaches a spacing between the plurality of elements and the cutting edge but does not specifically teach a measurement. So while a specific measurement is not taught by Hamada, Hamada does show that a person of ordinary skill is well appraised of spacing a plurality of element from the cutting edge and as such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacing of the plurality of element and cutting edge taught by Hamada such that the spacing were any distance deemed desirable as it would only require routine skill in the art to adjust such spacing (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)).
Tateyama teaches a blade (Tateyama, Fig. 8B, 20) with a first plurality of elements (Tateyama, Fig. 8B, 20h) wherein the first plurality of elements at an increasing depth with increasing distance from the cutting edge, as seen in Fig. 8B the depth of the plurality of elements increases in the facet the same as the instant invention.
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 blade taught by Hamada such that the first plurality of element had an increasing depth within the facet as such features are well known in the art to help improve debris collection.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
481
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising laser ablating (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123) a second plurality of elements (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 50) with a depth on a second surface (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 12), the second plurality of elements being spaced apart from the cutting edge by a distance (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 10).
Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama does not teach the second plurality of elements with a depth between about 0.01 µm and about 20 µm on the second facet, the second plurality of elements being spaced apart from the cutting edge about 0.05 µm to about 2 µm.
Floter teaches a razor blade (Floter, Fig. 1a-6b, P. 0041) wherein a plurality of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6a (Floter) above) is formed on a facet (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6a (Floter) below) of a surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6a (Floter) above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to modify the position of any plurality of elements taught by Hamada such that the plurality of elements were positioned on any facet or surface of a razor blade in view of Floter as such a rearrangement of parts would not alter the function of the plurality of elements of Hamada which are intended to contact the skin of a user to decrease fiction (Hamada, P. 0050 and see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Hamada further teaches a depth for a plurality of elements of 0.05 mm (Hamada, P. 0051) or 50 µm. While the depth taught by Hamada is not in the claimed range 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 depth of any plurality of elements such that the depth of the plurality of elements were any desirable depth as deciding the depth for any feature of a razor only requires routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)).
Hamada also teaches a spacing between the plurality of elements and the cutting edge but does not specifically teach a measurement. So while a specific measurement is not taught by Hamada, Hamada does show that a person of ordinary skill is well appraised of spacing a plurality of element from the cutting edge and as such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacing of the plurality of element and cutting edge taught by Hamada such that the spacing were any distance deemed desirable as it would only require routine skill in the art to adjust such spacing (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 2, wherein laser ablating (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123) the second plurality of elements (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 50) comprises offsetting the second plurality of elements on the second facet from the first plurality of elements on the first facet, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “offsetting”, the first facet and second facet are angularly offset from each other and by forming the first plurality of elements on the first facet and second plurality of elements on the second facet both of the pluralities of elements would also be angularly offset from each other, as such the first plurality of elements and second plurality of elements as modified in claim 1 are offset.
Regarding claim 4, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a conforming first coating (Hamada, Fig. 7A-7B, 30) covering at least the cutting edge (Hamada, Fig. 7A-7B, 10, P. 0028).
Regarding claim 7, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein laser ablating the first plurality of elements comprises spacing the plurality of elements at a distance of 100 µm from each other (Hamada, P. 0050).
Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama does not teach spacing the plurality of elements at a distance of about 1 µm to about 50 µm from each other.
While the spacing for the plurality of elements taught by Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama is outside the claimed range 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 device such that the spacing of the plurality of elements were any desirable distance or range as doing so is a matter of routine optimization for a worker in the art in an effort to reduce friction.
Regarding claim 17, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elements (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 50) is a distance from the cutting edge (Hamada, Fig. 7A-7B, 10) and form a textured surface (Hamada, Fig. 6B, 50).
Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama 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 Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama does not teach a specific distance or range from which the plurality of elements extend to form a textured surface Hamada does teach that the plurality of elements would be spaced from the cutting edge and would then further extend in a direction perpendicular to the cutting edge by some distance. Thus, 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 device such that the plurality of elements forming the textured surface were any desirable distance or range from the cutting edge and extended any desirable distance or range in a direction perpendicular to the cutting edge as doing so is a matter of routine optimization for a worker in the art in an effort to reduce friction.
Regarding claim 19, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama 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 on a blade platform (Hamada, Fig. 9A-9B, 60 and 62, P. 0033).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 2004/0143975 A1) in view of Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1), Kramer (US 5,121,660 A), and Floter (US 2012/0276826 A1), and Tateyama (US 10,173,408 B2) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fontecchio et al. (US 2018/0001497 A1), hereafter known as Fontecchio.
Regarding claim 5, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 4.
Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama does not teach wherein applying the conforming first coating comprises covering the first plurality of elements.
Fontecchio teaches a blade (Fontecchio, Fig. 1-4A, 20) with a coating (Fontecchio, Fig. 1-4A, 34) that covers most (Fontecchio, Fig. 3A-3B, 34) or the entirely (Fontecchio, Fig. 2 and 3C, 34) of both the first and second facets of the blade and the application thereof (Fontecchio, Fig. 5-7B). Although Fontecchio does not teach covering a plurality of elements on the facets it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to try to cover the plurality of elements taught by Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama as Fontecchio teaches that it is well known in the art of razor blades to provide a coating for the cutting edge and facets of a blade as way to reduce friction while shaving (Fontecchio, P. 0007) so while the plurality of elements would be additional structures on the facet of the blade a worker in the art would readily recognize that coating these elements would yield the similar benefit of friction reduction that applying the coating to the facet surfaces provides (see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 2004/0143975 A1) in view of Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1), Kramer (US 5,121,660 A), Floter (US 2012/0276826 A1), and Tateyama (US 10,173,408 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferraro et al. (US 5,329,700), hereafter known as Ferraro.
Regarding claim 12, Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama teaches the method of claim 1.
Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama does not teach wherein laser ablating the first plurality of elements comprises laser ablating a plurality of dimples into a top surface of the first facet. While Daskal teaches that it is well known in the art concerning the production cutlery to use a process of laser ablation to etch trenches as a plurality of elements into a blade (Daskel, P. 0076), Ferraro teaches that it is well known in the art of razor blades to provide blades with dimples (Ferraro, Fig. 2, 20). 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 the plurality of elements taught by Hamada in view of Daskal, Kramer, Floter and Tateyama such that the plurality of elements were dimples as such changes in shape only require routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the drawing objection of record for “the conforming first coating” of claim 5 does not need to be illustrated as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what the coating refers to. The Examiner disagrees, while coatings may be common in the art of making razor blade the fact that the applicant has claimed it and that the coating may only cover certain areas of the blade and thus later be important to the instant invention some indication of where the coating is would be useful to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the applicant assertion is unpersuasive and the drawing objection of record is maintained.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type rejection of record for claim 1 is improper as the prior art of record does not teach all the claimed limitations of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees, the applicant’s assertion is specifically in regards to the teaching of laser ablation, it’s not required for a single teaching or piece of prior art to teach an entire limitation alone. Here Hamada teaches that a blade with a plurality of element is well known in the art while Floter teaches it is well known in the art to have these elements located on a facet and Daskel shows that it is well known in the art to use laser ablation to cut into blades to form different features while the features taught by Daskel may not be the plurality of elements claimed the disclosure of Daskel shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that laser ablation could cut into blades as desired and thus combine that knowledge with the other teachings. The depth of the elements was found not to draw on any criticality as the applicant did not include any evidence as to why the specific claimed depth was inventive. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive. However, as the applicant has amended the claim an updated prior art rejection is included above.
12. The applicant asserts that claims 2-5, 7, 12, and 18-19 are allowable as claim 1 is allowable. The Examiner disagrees, claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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