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. Therefore, the first point (see at least claim 14) and the second point (see at least claim 14) 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 § 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.
Claim 14 is 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 claim 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 (if these features are shown in the drawings, they should each be indicated with a reference character, and the specification should be amended accordingly, without introducing new matter).
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, 4-8, and 14 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 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 wherein the coating layer includes: a pair of first facets extending from the coating tip to a pair of first variant points
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 discloses a pair of first facets extending from the coating tip to a pair of first variant points (as modified, the first facets extend from point 2a to the pair of first variant points; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above); and a pair of second facets extending from the pair of first variant points in a direction away from the coating tip (a pair of second facets extends from the pair of first facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein a gradient of the pair of first facets is smaller than a gradient 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 each first variant point of the pair of first variant points is located between the coating tip and the substrate tip at a position where a corresponding first facet ends and a corresponding second facet begins (as modified, the pair of first variant points are formed between point 2a and the substrate tip; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), wherein a first circle passes through the coating tip and the pair of first variant points, wherein the substrate tip is located outside the first circle (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), and wherein, due to the gradient of the pair of first facets being smaller than the gradient of the pair of second facets, an area adjacent to the coating tip is formed with a protrusion (as modified, a protrusion is formed by the portion of the blade adjacent to point 2a; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the pair of first facets extends from the coating tip to a corresponding first variant point over a distance of 0.03 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers in a direction of the reference line.
Sastri discloses wherein each of the pair of first facets extends from the coating tip to a corresponding first variant point over a distance of 0.03 micrometers to 0.15 micrometers in a 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). In the instant case, Akari would not perform differently if modified to have the recited range, i.e., the device would still be capable of performing a shaving operation. 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).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first circle has a radius of 0.005 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 circle have a radius from 0.005 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 0.005 to 0.15 micrometers” (see paragraph [0038] 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 pair of first facets and at least a portion of the pair of second facets (as modified, the first facet and at least a portion of the second facet are located between the substrate tip (tip of base plate 3) and point 2a; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
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 each first variant point where a corresponding first facet and a corresponding 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 pair of second facets are 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 third pair of facets extends from the second pair of facets; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above), and wherein a gradient of the pair of third facets is smaller than a gradient of the pair of second facets 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 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 each second variant point where a corresponding second facet and a corresponding 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.
Akari as modified further discloses a ratio of a height of each second facet (the distance from point 2a to the second variant point, along axis 3a, defines the height of the second facet) to a height of a corresponding first facet (the distance from point 2a to the first variant point, along axis 3a, defines the height of the first facet).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein 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 height of the second facet to the height of the first facet 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 ratio of height of the second facet to the height of the first facet 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).
Regarding claim 14, Akari as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Akari as modified further discloses wherein a second circle passes through a first variant point of the pair of first variant points, a first point on a corresponding first facet, and a second point on a corresponding second facet (as modified, the second circle passes through the first variant point and a first and second point; see annotated portion of fig. 7c above).
Akari as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the first variant point and each of the first point and the second point, measured in the direction of the reference line, is 0.01 micrometers, and wherein the second circle has a radius of 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 have 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).
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 Sastri (GB 1378550), 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 pair of first facets is in a range of 30° to 75°.
Yamada discloses wherein an angle formed at the coating tip by the first facet pair of first facets 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 Sastri (GB 1378550), 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 imaginary lines extending from the pair of first variant points in the respective extension directions of the pair of second facets is in a range of 60° to 120°.
Skrobis discloses wherein an angle formed by imaginary lines extending from the pair of first variant points in the respective extension directions of the pair of second facets (the angle is measured between linear extension 14’ and 16’ and comprises the facet angle α; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 2) is in a range of 60° to 120° (facet angle α ranges from 90° to 135°; 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 60° to 120° (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 Sastri (GB 1378550), 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 filed 9/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Akari as modified does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner interprets that the circles recited in the claims are used to demonstrate the overall shape of the blade profile and their specific dimensions. As modified to include a pair of first facets, Examiner asserts that the modified references teach the overall shape of the blade as discussed above. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that insufficient factual basis for the routine-optimization rationale is provided, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, the differing dimensions of the circles effectively change the angle of the coating tip. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to experiment with different coating tip configurations in order to achieve the optimal balance between strength and sharpness in order to provide a blade that is sufficiently sharp without breaking due to its thinness.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to claims 4, 5, and 7, Examiner notes that Sastri discloses a blade profile largely the same as that of the modified references, thus it is Examiner’s position that the numerical values are relevant to the claims. W1 corresponds to the position of the first variant points, and W2 corresponds to the position of the second variant points.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to claim 6, Examiner notes the annotated portion of fig. 7(c) above, wherein the gradient of the third facet relative to axis 3a is smaller than the gradient of the second facet (i.e., the third facets are less “steep”).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to claim 11, Examiner notes that the coating thickness (particularly at 54b) ranges from 0.2 micrometers to 1 micrometer, which falls within the recited range. In other words, the substrate is formed between 0.2 micrometers to 1 micrometer from the coating tip.
Therefore, Examiner maintains that the references as applied above teach the limitations of the claims as currently recited. To advance prosecution, Examiner recommends focusing claim limitations on structural limitations or providing evidence to show that the claimed ranges are critical and yield unexpected results (see MPEP 716.02).
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
Prosecution Insights