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, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the first facet” and “the second facet” should be amended to read “the pair of first facets” and “the pair of second facets” respectively. Examiner notes that at least claims 2-9, 12, and 14 require similar corrections. Alternatively, the “first facet” and the “second facet” should be positively recited in claim 1.
Claim 10: “the pair of second facet” should be amended to read “the pair of second facets”
Claim 14:
per paragraph [0029] of the instant specification, it appears that “the first variant portion” is used interchangeably with the term “the first variant point”. Since claim 1 recites a pair of first variant points, it is recommended that the “the first variant portion” be amended to read the “a first variant point” to improve clarity.
it is not made explicitly clear if “a circle” is intended to refer to the same circle that is recited in claim 1, or if the circle of claim 14 is a second circle. Since claim 1 requires that the circle pass through the coating tip and the pair of first variant points, and the circle of claim 14 requires that the circle passes through the first variant portion (which is understood to be used interchangeably with the “first variant points” as discussed above), it is presumed to be intended that the circle of claim 14 is the same circle as that recited in claim 1. Therefore, “a circle” should be amended to read “the circle”.
it is not made explicitly clear which feature is located on the first facet and the second facet. It appears that the first variant portion/point is located on the first facet and the second facet, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “majority” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is unclear what scope is intended by “an area between the substrate tip and the coating tip includes all of the first facet and a majority of the second facet”. Is 51% considered a majority? Or does this term require a more significant portion of the second facet to be located within the defined area?
Similarly, the term “relatively” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is not made explicitly clear what is intended by the phrase “a relatively thin and sharp protrusion”. How thin must the protrusion be to be considered “relatively” thin?
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 1-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of Sastri (GB 1378550), and further in view of Skrobis (US 20210031390; hereinafter Skrobis ‘390).
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), wherein the coating layer includes: a pair of first facets extending from the coating tip (a pair of first facets extends from point 2a; see annotated portion of fig. 7c below); and 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 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Akari does not explicitly disclose wherein a gradient of the first facet is smaller than that of the second facet based on a reference line passing through the substrate tip and the coating tip and wherein the substrate tip is located outside a circle passing through both the coating tip and the pair of first variant points.
Sastri discloses wherein a gradient of the first facet is smaller than that of the second facet based on a reference line passing through the substrate tip and the coating tip (the gradient of the first facet is smaller than that of the second facet; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Akari in view of Sastri to make the gradient of the first facet smaller than that of the second facet. Sastri discloses that the blades exhibit excellent shaving properties and a longer shaving life when configured this way (see pg. 5, lines 30-58). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modifying the first and second facets of Akari would likewise result in improved shaving properties and shaving life.
Skrobis ‘390 discloses wherein the substrate tip is located outside a circle passing through both the coating tip and the pair of first variant points (the substrate tip (formed at the point of substrate 56) is located outside of a circle that passes through the coating tip (formed at the point of outer layer 135) and a pair of first variant points where the first and second pairs of facets meet; see annotated portion of fig. 21a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
675
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 ‘390 to make the substrate tip located outside a circle passing through both the coating tip and the pair of first variant points. Inscribing such a circle effectively results in increased thickness of the coating at the blade tip. Skrobis ‘390 discloses that the thickness of the coatings (in conjunction with the blade’s position) directly affects skin engagement and feel for a user. Specifically, if the blade is disposed towards the rear of the cartridge and the thickness is increased, it can improve shaving comfort without compromising the closeness of the shave (see paragraph [0034]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applying these teachings to the modified device of Akari would yield the same benefits – therefore, it would be obvious to further modify Akari in view of Skrobis ‘390 in order to improve comfort without reducing the effectiveness of the blade.
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 (the space between the substrate tip and point 2a includes the first pair of facets and at least a portion of the second pair of facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Regarding claim 3, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sastri further 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.
Sastri further 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.
Sastri further 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 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 pair of third facets extends from the pair of second 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 pair of third facets is smaller than that of the pair of second facets with respect to axis 3a; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Regarding claim 7, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Sastri further 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).
Regarding claim 8, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Sastri further discloses wherein in the direction of the reference line, a ratio of a first distance from the coating tip to a first point where the first facet and the second facet meet (the first facet and second facet meet at a point 1000 Angstroms, or 0.1 micrometers, from the coating tip; see pg. 2, lines 103-104) to a second distance from the coating tip to a second point where the second facet and the third facet meet (the second facet and third facet meet at a point 2000 Angstroms, or 0.2 micrometers, from the coating tip; see pg. 2, lines 106-107) is in a range of 2 to 10 (the ratio between the first and second distances is 0.5).
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 ratio of a first and second distances in a range of 2 to 10 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In the instant case, the ratio between the first and second distances is 0.5, which is merely close to that of the claimed range (see In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)). Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the range, simply indicating that the ratio of the distances may be within the claimed range (see paragraph [0057] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 12, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
As best understood, Akari as modified further discloses wherein an area between the substrate tip and the coating tip includes all of the first facet and a portion of the second facet (as best understood, the area between the substrate tip and point 2a includes all of the first pair of facets and at least a portion of the second pair of facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Akari to make a majority of the second facet included in the area between the substrate tip and the coating tip. As shown in the annotated portion of fig. 7c above, at least a portion of the second pair of facets is located within the area between the substrate and coating tips. As modified by the teachings of Skrobis ‘390, the device of Akari includes a thicker coating at the tip of the blade, which results in a larger portion of the pair of second facets being located within the substrate and coating tips. Making a majority of the pair of second facets located between the tips would be obvious to try since a balance must be reached between shaving closeness and comfort for a user. As taught by Skrobis ‘390, the thickness of a blade’s coating has a direct effect on these variables, therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to experiment with different thicknesses in order to achieve an optimal configuration.
Regarding claim 13, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein an area adjacent to the coating tip is formed with a relatively thin and sharp protrusion (an area around the coating tip forms a protrusion; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Regarding claim 14, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Skrobis ‘390 further discloses a radius of a circle passing through the first variant portion, which is located above the substrate tip, on the first facet and on the second facet (a circle that passes through the first variant portion is formed above the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 21a above).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a radius is 0.003 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 in view of Skrobis ‘390 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari (US 20100024222) in view of Sastri (GB 1378550), in view of Skrobis (US 20210031390; hereinafter Skrobis ‘390), 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 Sastri (GB 1378550), in view of Skrobis (US 20210031390; hereinafter Skrobis ‘390), and further in view of Skrobis (US 20130014396; hereinafter Skrobis ‘396).
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 facet meets in an extension direction of the pair of second facets is in a range of 60° to 120°.
Skrobis ‘396 discloses wherein an angle formed by meeting imaginary lines extending from points where the pair of first facets and the pair of second facet 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 ‘396 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 Sastri (GB 1378550), in view of Skrobis (US 20210031390; hereinafter Skrobis ‘390), 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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