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 amendment filed March 27th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled. The specification and claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/23/2026 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-20 and newly added claims 21 and 22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden Hamilton et al. (US 20120311865 A1 – hereinafter Hamilton) in view of Hiroyuki Ochiai et al. (US 20120317822 A1 – hereinafter Ochiai).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton teaches a razor blade comprising: a substrate (Fig. 3,
Substrate 17) comprising: a substrate tip (Fig. 3, tip defined by Cutting Edge I) formed at an end
portion (Fig. 3, end portion shown), and a first substrate facet (Fig. 3, facet immediately to the
right of the substrate tip) and a second substrate facet (Fig. 3, facet immediately to the left of the
substrate tip) extending from the substrate tip to both sides; and a coating (Fig. 4, coating
comprised of Adhesion Promoter 18 and Outer Layer 19) joined to the substrate and comprising
a coating tip (Fig. 4, tip of coating at the top end of the Substrate 17 in the vertical direction as
shown in Fig. 4) formed at an end portion, the coating comprising: a first coating facet (Fig. 4,
coating facet immediately to the right of the coating tip) and a second coating facet (Fig. 4,
coating facet immediately to the left of the coating tip) extending from the coating tip to both
sides and corresponding to the first substrate facet and the second substrate facet, respectively,
wherein the substrate further includes a third substrate facet (Fig. 3, substrate facet connected to
and below the first substrate facet) extending from one end of the first substrate facet, wherein a line tangential to the first substrate facet and a line tangential to the third substrate facet are not parallel to each other (Fig. 3), and wherein the coating further includes a third coating facet (Fig. 4, coating facet attached to and immediately below the first coating facet) extending from one end of the first coating facet and corresponding to the third substrate facet, and wherein a line tangential to the first coating facet and a line tangential to the third coating facet are not parallel to each other (Fig. 4).
Hamilton does not teach wherein a first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two and a second vertical centerline passing through the coating tip while dividing the coating in two are spaced apart from each other, and wherein the first vertical centerline passes through the first coating facet.
However, Ochiai teaches a razor blade wherein a first vertical centerline (Fig. 5,
centerline of Base Member 6 passing through the tip of Base Member 6 and extending in the
vertical direction) passing through the substrate tip (Fig. 5, tip of Base Member 6 at the bottom
of Fig. 5) while dividing the substrate (Fig. 5, Base Member 6) in two and a second vertical
centerline (Fig. 5, centerline of Cutting Edge Member 7 passing through the tip of Cutting Edge
Member 7 and extending in the vertical direction, parallel to the first vertical centerline) passing
through the coating tip (Fig. 5, tip of Cutting Edge Member 7 at the bottom of Fig. 5) while
dividing the coating (Fig. 5, Cutting Edge Member 7) in two are spaced apart from each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Hamilton to include the limitations of claim 1
above as taught by Ochiai as it requires only a change in the shape/form of the coating, and a
change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the
art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, the resulting combination of Hamilton and Ochiai would inherently lead to the first centerline of Hamilton, now offset from the second centerline, passing through one of the first coating facet and the second coating facet, as the entire blade of Hamilton is coated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Hamilton and Ochiai such that the first centerline passes through the first coating facet as it requires only a change in the shape/form of the coating, and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the first vertical centerline and the second vertical centerline is 0.01 μm to 0.17 μm, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a horizontal distance between the first vertical centerline and the second vertical centerline of 0.01 μm to 0.17 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction parallel to the first
vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined
as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a
horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of
the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the
vertical direction in the same plane shown).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a distance measured in the vertical direction from the substrate tip to a first horizontal line passing through a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet while being parallel with the horizontal direction is 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance measured in the vertical direction from the substrate tip to a first horizontal line passing through a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet while being parallel with the horizontal direction of 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a distance between a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet and the substrate tip is 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet and the substrate tip of 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a distance from the substrate tip to a point where a first horizontal line passing through a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet, parallel to the horizontal direction, meets the second substrate facet is 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance from the substrate tip to a point where a first horizontal line passing through a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet, parallel to the horizontal direction, meets the second substrate facet of 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a distance measured in the horizontal direction from a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet to the second substrate facet is 0.05 μm to 0.3 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance measured in the horizontal direction from a point where the first substrate facet and the third substrate facet meet to the second substrate facet of 0.05 μm to 0.3 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction parallel to the first
vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined
as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a
horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of
the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the
vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the
substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the first vertical centerline and the third substrate facet at a point, which is 0.3 μm away from the substrate tip in the vertical direction, is 0.131 μm to 0.243 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the first vertical centerline and the third substrate facet at a point, which is 0.3 μm away from the substrate tip in the vertical direction, of 0.131 μm to 0.243 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction parallel to the first
vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined
as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a
horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of
the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the
vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the
substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the first vertical centerline and the second substrate facet at a point, which is 0.3 μm away from the substrate tip in the vertical direction, is 0.084 μm to 0.156 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the first vertical centerline and the second substrate facet at a point, which is 0.3 μm away from the substrate tip in the vertical direction, of 0.084 μm to 0.156 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction parallel to the first
vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined
as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a
horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of
the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the
vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the
substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the second substrate facet and the second coating facet is 0.06 μm to 0.3 μm at a point, which is 0.3 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the second substrate facet and the second coating facet of 0.06 μm to 0.3 μm at a point, which is 0.3 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction parallel to the first
vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined
as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a
horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of
the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the
vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the
substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the second substrate facet and the second coating facet is 0.06 μm to 0.3 μm at a point, which is 0.3 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the second substrate facet and the second coating facet of 0.06 μm to 0.3 μm at a point, which is 0.3 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip is 0.1 μm to 0.4 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip of 0.1 μm to 0.4 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Hamilton further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a
direction parallel to a second vertical centerline passing through the coating tip while dividing
the coating in two is defined as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the second
vertical centerline is defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical
direction to be along the direction of the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to
be the direction perpendicular to the vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical
centerline which passes through the substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a distance measured in the vertical direction from the coating tip to a second horizontal line passing through a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet while being parallel with the horizontal direction is 0.1 μm to 0.5 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance measured in the vertical direction from the coating tip to a second horizontal line passing through a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet while being parallel with the horizontal direction of 0.1 μm to 0.5 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a distance between a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet and the coating tip is 0.15 μm to 0.4 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet and the coating tip of 0.15 μm to 0.4 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0064]).
Regarding claim 17, Hamilton further teaches wherein a direction perpendicular to the
second vertical centerline passing through the coating tip while dividing the coating in two is
defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the
direction of the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction
perpendicular to the vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline
which passes through the substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled
J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a distance measured in the horizontal direction from a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet to the second coating facet is 0.15 μm to 0.35 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance measured in the horizontal direction from a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet to the second coating facet of 0.15 μm to 0.35 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Hamilton already teaches wherein a direction parallel to the second
vertical centerline passing through the coating tip while dividing the coating in two is defined as
a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the second vertical centerline is defined as a
horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of
the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the
vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical centerline which passes through the
substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a value obtained by subtracting a distance value measured in the vertical direction from the coating tip to a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip, parallel to the horizontal direction, from a distance value measured in the vertical direction from the coating tip to a second horizontal line passing through a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet, parallel to the horizontal direction, is -0.08 μm to 0.15 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance value measured in the vertical direction from the coating tip to a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip, parallel to the horizontal direction, from a distance value measured in the vertical direction from the coating tip to a second horizontal line passing through a point where the first coating facet and the third coating facet meet, parallel to the horizontal direction, of -0.08 μm to 0.15 μm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0070]).
Regarding claim 19, Hamilton further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a
direction parallel to the first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical
centerline which passes through the substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the
measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the third substrate facet and the third coating facet is 0.04 μm to 0.18 μm at a point which is 0.3 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the third substrate facet and the third coating facet of 0.04 μm to 0.18 μm at a point which is 0.3 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0073]).
Regarding claim 20, Hamilton further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a
direction parallel to the first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two is defined as a vertical direction and a direction perpendicular to the first vertical centerline is defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, examiner defines the vertical direction to be along the direction of the measurement labelled J, and the horizontal direction to be the direction perpendicular to the vertical direction in the same plane shown. The first vertical
centerline which passes through the substrate tip runs parallel to the direction of the measurement labelled J).
The combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach wherein a horizontal distance between the third substrate facet and the third coating facet is 0.04 μm to 0.16 μm at a point which is 0.5 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have a distance between the third substrate facet and the third coating facet of 0.04 μm to 0.16 μm at a point which is 0.5 μm away in the vertical direction from a substrate tip horizontal line passing through the substrate tip while being parallel to the horizontal direction 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0075]).
Regarding claim 21, the existing combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the second coating facet has a thickness greater than a thickness of the first coating facet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai such that the second coating facet has a thickness greater than a thickness of the first coating facet 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hamilton and Ochiai would not operate differently with regards to being able to cut hair. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the relative thicknesses.
Regarding claim 22, the existing combination of Hamilton and Ochiai already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the coating tip is laterally offset relative to the substrate tip toward the second substrate facet, such that a portion of the coating tip overlies the second substrate facet (See the rejection of claim 1 above – the first and second vertical centerlines are offset in such a way that the substrate tip extends through the first coating facet, and therefore the coating tip is also offset from the substrate tip and overlies the second substrate facet).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden
Hamilton et al. (US 20120311865 A1 – hereinafter Hamilton) and Hiroyuki Ochiai et al. (US 20120317822 A1 – hereinafter Ochiai) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peter Gluche et al. (EP 3895857 A1 – hereinafter Gluche).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hamilton and Ochiai does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein an angle formed by a first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two and a line tangential to the first substrate facet is 40° to 55°.
However, Gluche teaches a razor blade wherein an angle (Fig. 8b, angle being the
difference between First Wedge Angle theta.sub.1 and Effective Cutting Angle ε) formed by a
first vertical centerline (Fig. 8b, dashed line within Cutting Blade 1 passing through Cutting
Edge 4) passing through the substrate tip (Fig. 8b, tip defined by Cutting Edge 4) while dividing
the substrate (Fig. 8b, Cutting Blade 1) in two and a line tangential to the first substrate facet
(Fig. 8b, dotted line connected to Cutting Edge 4 and tangential to an outer surface of Cutting
Blade 1) is 0° to 65° (Fig. 8b; Page 3 Para 8 and Page 4 Para 4- assuming that the Effective
Cutting Angle ε cannot be greater than First Wedge Angle theta.sub.1, the minimum value for
Effective Cutting Angle ε is 10°, and the maximum value of the First Wedge Angle theta.sub.1 is
75°).
Gluche does not teach that this angle is 40° to 55°, however it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the device of Hamilton and Ochiai to have wherein an angle formed by a first vertical centerline passing through the substrate tip while dividing the substrate in two and a line tangential to the first substrate facet of 40° to 55° instead of 0° to 65° as taught by Gluche as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Gluche identifies the Effective Cutting Angle, from which the claimed angle is derived, as a result effective variable which must be optimized to find an appropriate balance between efficient hair removal and safety during shaving (Gluche; Page 2 Para 5-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights