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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. It is unclear whether the present drawings illustrate the features of claims 1 and 14 because no pair of first variant points, pair of second variant points, or a pair of third facets are indicated with a reference character in the present drawings (only a single first variant point, second variant point, and third facet are indicated). Therefore, the features of claims 1 and 14 should be shown in the present drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the features of claims 1 and 14 are shown in the drawings, then the pair of first variant points should be indicated with reference characters to make clear that these features are illustrated (see MPEP 608.01(o), explaining that in mechanical cases the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies). 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 13, “a circle” should be amended to read “a first circle” (any dependent claims referencing the same structure should also be amended to read “first circle” to further differentiate between the first and second circles)
Claim 2:
“the first facet” should be amended to read “the first pair of facets”
“the second facet” should be amended to read “the second pair of facets”
Claim 3:
“the first facet” should be amended to read “the first pair of facets”
Claim 4:
“the first facet” should be amended to read “the first pair of facets”
“the second facet” should be amended to read “the second pair of facets”
Claim 5: “the second facet” should be amended to read “the second pair of facets”
Claim 6:
at line 3, “the third facet” should be amended to read “the third pair of facets”
at line 3, “the second facet” should be amended to read “the second pair of facets”
Claim 7:
at line 2, “the third facet” should be amended to read “the third pair of facets”
at line 2, “the second facet” should be amended to read “the second pair of facets”
Claim 8:
at line 2, “the first point” should be amended to read “the first variant point”
at line 3, “the second point” should be amended to read “a second variant point”
at line 2, “the first facet” should be amended to read “the first pair of facets”
at lines 3-4, “the second facet” should be amended to read “the second pair of facets”
at line 4, “the third facet” should be amended to read “the third pair of facets”
Claim 9: at line 2, “the first facet” should be amended to read “the first pair of facets”
Claim 10: at line 2, “points” should be amended to read “the first variant points”
Claim 14: at line 5, “first variant points to and a second distance” should be amended to read “first variant points and a second distance”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, there is no recitation of a “first point” or a “second point” in the written description. It is unclear what the first and second points are intended to refer to since it appears that they are also not shown in the drawings.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient written description for the ratio being within a range of 2 to 10. The only recitation of this range in the specification describes a ratio of height H2 to height H1, which appears to correspond to a ratio of a first distance from the coating tip to the first variant points to a second distance from the first variant points to the second variant points (see paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Examiner notes that while the claim defines what is encompassed by the term “a majority”, there is no support for this in the written description. Specifically, paragraph [0031] describes that an area between the substrate tip and the coating tip may include at least a portion of the second facet and the first facet. In other words, although a portion of the second facet is described as being within the area, there is no support for exactly 75% of the second facet being within the area.
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, 2, 6, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of King (US 20040163262).
Regarding claim 1, Akari discloses a razor blade, comprising: a substrate including a substrate edge comprising a substrate tip formed at an end portion thereof (base plate 3 has edge surfaces 7, 8 and a substrate tip formed at the end; see figs. 7a-7c); and a coating layer disposed on the substrate (coating layer 4 is disposed on base plate 3; see paragraph [0052] and figs. 7a-7c) and comprising a coating tip formed at the end portion thereof (point 2a is formed at an end of coating layer 4; see figs. 7a-7c).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Akari does not explicitly disclose a pair of first facets.
King discloses a pair of first facets (concave bevels 342 and 344 extend from edge 346 to form a first pair of facets; see fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Akari in view of King to include a first pair of facets. King discloses a variety of blade tips with concave or convex bevels or a combination of both (see figs. 10-16). King further discloses that the configuration of the bevel edges directly affects the cutting angle and thickness of the blade (see paragraphs [0098-0100]). Increasing the blade thickness increases durability at the cost of sharpness/effectiveness. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to try various blade edge configurations to achieve sufficient balance between the two characteristics.
Akari as modified further discloses a pair of second facets extending from the pair of first facets at a pair of first variant points (a pair of second facets extends from the pair of first facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above, where the first facets as taught by King have been drawn in as part of the annotations), wherein a gradient of the pair of first facets is smaller than that of the pair of second facets based on a reference line (axis 3a; see fig. 7c) passing through the substrate tip and the coating tip (as modified, the gradient of the first pair of facets is smaller than that of the second pair of facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein the substrate tip is located outside a circle passing through both the coating tip and the pair of first variant points (as modified, the substrate tip is located outside of a first circle passing through point 2a and the pair of first variant points; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein the gradient with respect to the reference line is defined by a second circle passing through all of a first variant point of the pair of first variant points, a first point on the pair of first facets, and a second point on the pair of second facets (as modified, the second circle passes through the first variant point and a first and second point; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein the first variant point is formed between the coating tip and the substrate tip (the first variant point is located between point 2a and the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), and divides the pair of first facets and the pair of second facets (the first variant point is where the first and second facets meet; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein the first point and the second point are located on the same side of the reference line (the first point and second point are on the same side of axis 3a; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), and spaced away from the first variant point in a direction of the reference line (the first and second points are spaced away from the first variant point; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose that the first point and the second point are respectively spaced apart from the first variant point by 0.01 micrometers in a direction of the reference line, and wherein the second circle has a radius from 0.003 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari to make the first point and the second point spaced apart from the first variant point by 0.01 micrometers and the second circle has a radius from 0.003 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Akari as modified would not operate differently if further modified to have the recited ranges. This would effectively change the angle of the coating tip, which could be adjusted according to various factors. For example, extremely thin and sharp edges are prone to breakage (see paragraphs [0006-0007]). In order to provide a blade that is both strong and sharp, various factors must be considered, including material and angle of the blade edge. In other words, a balance must be achieved between the strength and sharpness of the blade, thus leading one of ordinary skill in the art to try various values to find the optimal ranges. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the radius of the circle “may range from 0.003 to 0.15 micrometers” (see paragraph [0039] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 2, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein an area between the substrate tip and the coating tip includes the first facet and at least a portion of the second facet (as modified, the first facet and at least a portion of the second facet are located between the substrate tip and point 2a; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Regarding claim 6, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein the coating layer includes a pair of third facets extending from the pair of second facets (a third pair of facets extends from the second pair of facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), and wherein a gradient of the third facet is smaller than that of the second facet based on the reference line (the gradient of the third facet is smaller than the second facet; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Regarding claim 8, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein in the direction of the reference line, a ratio of a first distance from the coating tip to the first point where the first facet and the second facet meet (the space from point 2a to the first variant points is a first distance; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above) to a second distance from the coating tip to the second point where the second facet and the third facet meet (the space from point 2a to the second variant points is a second distance; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose that the ratio is in a range of 2 to 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari to make the ratio of the first and second distances between 2 and 10 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Akari as modified would not operate differently if modified to have the claimed range. That is, the blade of Akari as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting operation even if the distances of the first and second facets were modified. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range (see 112(a) rejection above).
Regarding claim 12, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein an area between the substrate tip and the coating tip includes all of the pair of first facets and a majority of the pair of second facets, and wherein the majority is greater than 75% of the pair of second facets (the area between the substrate tip and point 2a includes all of the first pair of facets and at least 75% of the second pair of facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Regarding claim 13, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
King further discloses wherein an area adjacent to the coating tip is formed with a thin and sharp protrusion (concave bevels 342, 344 form a thin sharp edge 346; see paragraph [0099] and fig. 14).
Regarding claim 14, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein a radius of the second circle passing through a point of first variant points, which is located above the substrate tip, on the first point of the pair of first facets and on the second point on the pair of second facets (the second circle is located above the substrate tip and passes through the first and second points; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein a ratio of a first distance from the coating tip to the pair of first variant points (the space from point 2a to the first variant points is a first distance; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above) to and a second distance from the pair of first variant points to a pair of second variant points where the pair of second facets and a pair of third facets meet (the space from the first variant points to the second variant points is a second distance; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose that the radius of the second circle is between 0.003 to 0.15 micrometers or that the ratio is in a range of 2 to 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari to make the radius of the circle 0.003 to 0.15 micrometers 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Akari as modified would not operate differently if further modified to have the claimed range. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the radius of the circle “may range from 0.003 to 0.15 micrometers” (see paragraph [0039] of instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari to make the ratio of the first and second distances between 2 and 10 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Akari as modified would not operate differently if modified to have the claimed range. That is, the blade of Akari as modified would still be capable of performing a cutting operation even if the distances of the first and second facets were modified. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the ratio “may be in a range of 2 to 10” (see paragraph [0057] of instant specification).
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of King (US 20040163262), and further in view of Sastri (GB 1378550).
Regarding claim 3, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein in response to a point a micrometer away from the coating tip in a direction of the reference line being Ta, the first facet is formed from the coating tip to a point (T0.03 to T0.15) from 0.03 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers away in the direction of the reference line.
Sastri discloses wherein in response to a point a micrometer away from the coating tip in a direction of the reference line being Ta, the first facet is formed from the coating tip to a point (T0.03 to T0.15) from 0.03 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers away in the direction of the reference line (W1, where the first facet ends, is formed 1000 Angstroms from the coating tip, which is equivalent to 0.1 micrometers; see pg. 2, lines 103-104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Sastri to make the first facet formed from the coating tip to a point 0.03 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers away since it has been held that “[i]f the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the thickness of the coating may be within the claimed range (see paragraph [0055] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 4, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the coating layer at a point where the first facet and the second facet meet is in a range of 0.035 micrometers to 0.16 micrometers.
Sastri discloses wherein a thickness of the coating layer at a point where the first facet and the second facet meet is in a range of 0.035 micrometers to 0.16 micrometers (the W1 width is about 1500 Angstroms, which is equivalent to 0.15 micrometers; see pg. 5, lines 44-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Sastri to have a coating thickness within a range of 0.035 micrometers to 0.16 micrometers since it has been held that “[i]f the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the thickness of the coating may be within the claimed range (see paragraph [0059] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 5, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein in response to a point a micrometer away from the coating tip in a direction of the reference line being Ta, the second facet is formed from the coating tip to a point (T0.2 to T0.65) from 0.2 micrometers to 0.65 micrometers away in the direction of the reference line.
Sastri discloses wherein in response to a point a micrometer away from the coating tip in a direction of the reference line being Ta, the second facet is formed from the coating tip to a point (T0.2 to T0.65) from 0.2 micrometers to 0.65 micrometers away in the direction of the reference line (W2, where the second facet ends, is formed 2000 Angstroms from the coating tip, which is equivalent to 0.2 micrometers; see pg. 2, lines 106-107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Sastri to make the second facet formed from the coating tip to a point 0.2 micrometers to 0.65 micrometers away since it has been held that “[i]f the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the thickness of the coating may be within the claimed range (see paragraph [0056] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 7, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the coating layer at a point where the second facet and the third facet meet is in a range of 0.05 micrometers to 0.35 micrometers.
Sastri discloses wherein a thickness of the coating layer at a point where the second facet and the third facet meet is in a range of 0.05 micrometers to 0.35 micrometers (the W2 width is about 3200 Angstroms, which is equivalent to 0.32 micrometers; see pg. 5, lines 44-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Sastri to have a coating thickness within a range of 0.05 micrometers to 0.35 micrometers since it has been held that “[i]f the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the thickness of the coating may be within the claimed range (see paragraph [0059] of instant specification).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of King (US 20040163262), and further in view of Yamada (US 20040099120).
Regarding claim 9, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle formed at the coating tip by the first facet is in a range of 30° to 75°.
Yamada discloses wherein an angle formed at the coating tip by the first facet is in a range of 30° to 75° (edge angle βα is between 17 to 45 degrees; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 8b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Yamada to make the angle at the coating tip be in a range of 30° to 75° 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). Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the angle may be between 30° to 75° (see paragraph [0033] of instant specification).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of King (US 20040163262), and further in view of Skrobis (US 20130014396).
Regarding claim 10, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle formed by meeting imaginary lines extending from points where the pair of first facets and the pair of second facets meets in an extension direction of the pair of second facets is in a range of 60° to 120°.
Skrobis discloses wherein an angle formed by meeting imaginary lines extending from points where the pair of first facets and the pair of second facets meets (the angle is measured between linear extension 14’ and 16’ and comprises the facet angle α and two wedge angles β; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 2) in an extension direction of the pair of second facets is in a range of 60° to 120° (adding the facet angle α and both wedge angles β results in an approximate range of 100-195; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Skrobis to make the angle formed between the imaginary lines be in a range of 60° to 120° 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). Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the angle may be between 30° to 75° (see paragraph [0033] of instant specification).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of King (US 20040163262), and further in view of Wang (US 20100178493).
Regarding claim 11, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein in response to a point a micrometer away from the coating tip in a direction of the reference line being Ta, the substrate tip is formed from the coating tip to a point (T0.1 to T0.6) from 0.1 micrometers to 0.6 micrometers away in the direction of the reference line.
Wang discloses wherein in response to a point a micrometer away from the coating tip in a direction of the reference line being Ta, the substrate tip is formed from the coating tip to a point (T0.1 to T0.6) from 0.1 micrometers to 0.6 micrometers away in the direction of the reference line (coatings 52 and 54 typically have a thickness between 0.2 micrometers to 1 micrometer; see paragraphs [0063-0064] and figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari in view of Wang to make the substrate tip formed 0.1 micrometers to 0.6 micrometers from the coating tip 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). Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the claimed range may be 0.1 to 0.6 micrometers (see paragraph [0058] of instant specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 9902013 to Uemura, drawn to an edged tool, method of manufacturing the same, and plasma device for manufacturing the same.
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