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 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 27, “0.3 ≤ m ≤ 0.7, 0.6 ≤ n ≤ 0.99, 10 ≤ a ≤ 60)” should be amended to read “(0.3 ≤ m ≤ 0.7, 0.6 ≤ n ≤ 0.99, 10 ≤ a ≤ 60)”
Claim 14: at line 19, “a substrate tip” should be amended to read “the substrate tip”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, there does not appear to be sufficient support in the specification to support the limitations added by these claims. Specifically, claim 18 requires “a first distance from the substrate tip corresponding to a region adjacent the substrate tip associated with initial penetration” and “a second distance corresponding to a cutting region”, however neither of these limitations are recited in the written description.
Regarding claim 19, there does not appear to be sufficient support in the specification for the new limitations, particularly “a first position adjacent the substrate tip” and “a second position farther from the substrate tip than the first position”. Thus it is unclear where these positions are located and what is encompassed by them.
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 1, 14, 18, and 19 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is intended by the terms “facing edge” and “non-facing edge” and further, how these edges correspond to a thinner edge region and a thicker edge region respectively. It appears these edges are dependent on the shaving direction, which does not appear to be defined in the specification. Specifically, the facing edge appears to be in direct contact with the user’s skin during shaving, while the non-facing edge is the opposite edge (see paragraph [0027] of instant specification). Further, in paragraph [0028], it is noted that the first and third facets may be non-facing edges, but it is also stated that the first and third facets may be facing edges. Therefore, it appears that whether a facet is a facing/non-facing edge is entirely dependent on which facets are contacting the user’s skin. As a result, it appears that the facing/non-facing edges may change depending on how the device is used – therefore the limitations related to the facing edge corresponding to a thinner edge region and the non-facing edge corresponding to a thicker edge region are unclear. If the facing/non-facing edges can change, how do the edges correspond to the thinner/thicker edge regions respectively?
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation “wherein the first vertical distance is greater than a difference between the first vertical distance and the second vertical distance” is unclear. The specification states that the first vertical distance may be in the range of “150 to 300 micrometers” and the second vertical distance may be in the range of “150 to 400 micrometers” (see paragraph [0033] of instant specification). Thus, there are instances where the first vertical distance may not be greater than a difference between the first vertical distance and the second vertical distance. For example, if the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers, and the second vertical distance is 400 micrometers, then the difference between the two would be 250 micrometers. In such a case, the first vertical distance is not greater than the difference between the first vertical distance and the second vertical distance.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, the first and second distances do not appear to be recited in the written description. Likewise, the “region associated with initial penetration” and the “cutting region” are not recited. Thus, it is unclear where these regions are and what portions of the blade they encompass. Do the first and second distances each refer to a single point or the whole region they correspond to?
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, the first and second positions are not recited in the written description. Thus, it is unclear where these positions are. Can the first position be anywhere near the substrate tip, and what is the limit before it is no longer considered to be adjacent to the substrate tip? Similarly, the second position is only required to be farther from the substrate tip than the first position – can any distance along the blade be considered the second position, as long as this requirement is fulfilled?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluche (EP 3895861) in view of Shen (US 20210323180), and further in view of Skrobis (US 20170136640).
Regarding claim 1, Gluche discloses a razor blade comprising: a substrate comprising a substrate edge (blade body 15 comprises first face 2 and second face 3, which is opposite first face 2; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3a) with a substrate tip formed at an end portion (cutting edge 4 is formed at an end where first face 2 and second face 3 intersect; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3a), wherein the substrate includes: a first facet extending directly from the substrate tip to one side (primary bevel 7 extends from cutting edge 4; see figs. 3a-3b); a second facet extending from the substrate tip to the other side (secondary bevel 5 extends from the other side of cutting edge 4; see figs. 3a-3b); a third facet extending directly from the first facet such that an extension direction of the third facet is angled with respect to an extension direction of the first facet (the direction that first surface 9 extends is angled differently than the direction that primary bevel 7 extends; see figs. 3a-3b); and a fourth facet extending from the second facet (upper surface 8; see figs. 3a-3b), wherein a slope of the first facet and a slope of the second facet are different from each other (the slope of primary bevel 7 is larger than that of secondary bevel 5; see figs. 3a-3b) with respect to a first vertical line that asymmetrically divides the substrate in two and passes through the substrate tip (the first vertical line divides blade body 15 asymmetrically in two and passes through cutting edge 4; see annotated portion of fig. 3b below), wherein a first horizontal line perpendicular to the first vertical line passes through a first point where the first facet and the third facet meet (intersecting line 12 is perpendicular with respect to the first vertical line and connects primary bevel 7 with first surface 9; see paragraph [0060] and figs. 3a-3b), wherein a second horizontal line perpendicular to the first vertical line passes through a second point where the second facet and the fourth facet meet (intersecting line 11 is perpendicular with respect to the first vertical line and connects secondary bevel 5 to upper surface 8; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3b), wherein a difference between a first vertical distance, which is a distance from the substrate tip to the first horizontal line (d1 marks the distance from cutting edge 4 to intersecting line 12; see paragraph [0061] and figs. 3a-3b), and a second vertical distance, which is a distance from the substrate tip to the second horizontal line (d2 marks the distance from cutting edge 4 to intersecting line 11; see paragraph [0061] and figs. 3a-3b), is 10 micrometers to 30 micrometers (since d1 ranges from 0.5 to 5 µm, whereas d2 ranges from 5 to 75 µm, the difference between the two vertical differences can fall between 10 micrometers to 30 micrometers; see paragraph [0061]), wherein a second vertical line bisects a region between the third facet and the fourth facet (the second vertical line which crosses a region between first surface 9 and upper surface 8; see annotated portion of fig. 3b below), and the substrate tip is offset from the second vertical line in a direction perpendicular thereto (see annotated portion of fig. 3b below), a thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet with respect to the first vertical line (a ratio of thickness greater than 1 suggests that the first and second facets are not equidistant from the first vertical line. Since primary bevel 7 and secondary bevel 5 are spaced differently from the first vertical line, the ratio of thickness should be above 1; see fig. 3b), wherein the third facet and the fourth facet are parallel to each other (first surface 9 and upper surface 8 are parallel to one another; see figs. 3a-3b), wherein the offset substrate tip defines a facing edge and a non-facing edge (secondary bevel 5 may correspond to a facing edge and primary bevel 7 may correspond to a non-facing edge during a shaving operation; see annotated portion of fig. 3b below), the facing edge corresponding to a thinner edge region and the non-facing edge corresponding to a thicker edge region (secondary bevel 5 is thinner than primary bevel 7; see annotated portion of fig. 3b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gluche does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers to 350 micrometers, and wherein when a point "a" micrometer away from the substrate tip in a direction of the first vertical line is defined as Da, and a thickness of the first facet at Da with respect to the first vertical line is defined as T1,a micrometer, T1,a satisfies the following Equation 1:
(Equation 1)
T1,a= m x (an)
0.3 ≤ m ≤ 0.7, 0.6 ≤ n ≤ 0.99, 10 ≤ a ≤ 60).
Shen discloses wherein the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers to 350 micrometers (third facet 44 may have a length from 8 microns to 150 microns; see paragraph [0039] and figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche in view of Shen to make the first vertical distance 150 micrometers to 350 micrometers 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the first vertical distance “may” be 150 to 350 micrometers (see instant specification paragraph [0033]).
Skrobis discloses wherein when a point "a" micrometer away from the substrate tip in a direction of the first vertical line is defined as Da, and a thickness of the first facet at Da with respect to the first vertical line is defined as T1,a micrometer, T1,a satisfies the following Equation 1:
(Equation 1)
T1,a= m x (an)
0.3 ≤ m ≤ 0.7, 0.6 ≤ n ≤ 0.99, 10 ≤ a ≤ 60) (the thickness in micrometers may be found using the equation w=adn, where “a” is a proportionality factor ranging from 0.5 to 0.62, “d” is the distance in micrometers from the blade tip, and “n” is a constant ranging from 0.76 to 0.80; see paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Gluche in view of Skrobis to use the above equation to define a thickness of the facet at a point “a” micrometer from the substrate tip. Skrobis discloses an equation that is substantially identical, where the variable “a” corresponds to “m” in the instant application, “d” corresponds to “a”, and “n” remains the same. Using this equation, Skrobis teaches that the thickness w in micrometers can be calculated. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the ranges of the constants to those recited, 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the thickness of the first facet at Da with respect to the first vertical line “may” satisfy equation 1 (see instant specification paragraph [0043]).
Additionally, Skrobis discloses that the constants should be within the ranges described in paragraph [0039] in order to improve edge attributes such as strength, durability, and cutting performance (see paragraph [0039]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a balance must be achieved between cutting performance and attributes such as durability and strength – thus, such a modification would be obvious in order to achieve a balance between these features.
As modified, Gluche further discloses wherein a thickness of the first facet is thicker than a thickness of the second facet at D16 (as modified, the thickness of primary bevel 7 is thicker than that of secondary bevel 5; see fig. 3b), and wherein the first vertical distance is greater than a difference between the first vertical distance and the second vertical distance (as modified to make the first vertical distance 150 microns, the first vertical distance is larger than the difference between the first and second vertical distances).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate tip is offset from the second vertical line by 1.7-20 micrometers, wherein the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D16 is 1.05 to 2.72, and wherein the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D60 is 1.05 to 2.13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Gluche to make the substrate tip formed 1.7 micrometers to 20 micrometers away from the second vertical line 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in the annotated portion of fig. 3b above, the substrate tip (cutting edge 4) is formed away from the second vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific distance within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the substrate tip “may” be formed 1.7 to 20 micrometers away from the second vertical line (see instant specification paragraph [0035]). Additionally, since the second vertical line is only required to bisect a region between the third and fourth facets and be offset from the substrate tip, the second vertical line could be placed arbitrarily to fall within the recited distances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D16 is 1.05 to 2.72 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in fig. 3b, the device of Gluche has first and second facets which are formed at different distances from the first vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific ratio within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device since the facets are formed substantially the same as that of the instant invention. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the ratio “may” be between 1.05 to 2.72 (see instant specification paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D60 is 1.05 to 2.13 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in fig. 3b, the device of Gluche has first and second facets which are formed at different distances from the first vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific ratio within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device since the facets are formed substantially the same as that of the instant invention. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the ratio “may” be between 1.05 to 2.13 (see instant specification paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein the slope of the first facet is greater than the slope of the second facet (the slope of primary bevel 7 is larger than that of secondary bevel 5; see figs. 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 5, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein an extension direction of the third facet is different from an extension direction of the first facet (first surface 9 extends in a different direction than primary bevel 7; see figs. 3a-3b), and wherein an extension direction of the fourth facet is different from an extension direction of the second facet (upper surface 8 extends in a different direction than secondary bevel 5; see figs. 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 6, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein the third facet and the fourth facet are parallel to each other (first surface 9 and upper surface 8 are parallel to one another; see figs. 3a-3b), and wherein the substrate tip deviates from a second vertical line bisecting a region between the third facet and the fourth facet (cutting edge 4 deviates from the second vertical line which crosses a region between first surface 9 and upper surface 8; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above).
Regarding claim 8, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein when a point at which the second horizontal line meets the second vertical line is defined as a central point (a central point is defined by the intersection of intersecting line 11 and the second vertical line; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above), an angle formed by the second vertical line and a straight line passing through the central point and the substrate tip (an angle is formed by the second vertical line and the straight line which passes through the central point and cutting edge 4; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the angle is 0.5 degrees to 4 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the angle between 0.5 degrees and 4 degrees 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in the annotated portion of fig. 3b above, the device of Gluche would have an angle formed between the second vertical line and the straight line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific angle within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the angle “may” be 0.5 to 4 degrees (see instant specification paragraph [0036]). Additionally, since the second vertical line is only required to bisect a region between the third and fourth facets and be offset from the substrate tip, the second vertical line could be placed arbitrarily such that the angle formed by it and the straight line is between 0.5 to 4 degrees.
Regarding claim 9, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses an angle formed by the first facet and the second facet (an angle is formed where primary bevel 7 and secondary bevel 5 intersect; see fig. 3b).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the angle is 9.92 degrees to 23 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the angle between 9.92 degrees to 23 degrees 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in fig. 3b, the device of Gluche has an angle formed between the first and second facets; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific angle within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the angle “may” be between 9.92 to 23 degrees (see instant specification paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses a thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet with respect to the first vertical line (a ratio of thickness greater than 1 suggests that the first and second facets are not equidistant from the first vertical line. Since primary bevel 7 and secondary bevel 5 are spaced differently from the first vertical line, the ratio of thickness should be above 1; see fig. 3b).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness ratio at D16 is 1.1 to 2.72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D16 is 1.1 to 2.72 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in fig. 3b, the device of Gluche has first and second facets which are formed at different distances from the first vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific ratio within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device since the facets are formed substantially the same as that of the instant invention. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the ratio “may” be between 1.1 to 2.72 (see instant specification paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Skrobis further discloses wherein T1,10 has a value of 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers (using the provided equation w=adn, the thickness is found by w=(0.5)(10)0.76, which equals approximately 2.88 micrometers. Since the first vertical line is in the center, this number should be divided by 2, which yields a thickness of 1.44 micrometers; see paragraph [0039]), and T1,60 has a value of 6 to 15 micrometers (using the provided equation w=adn, the thickness is found by w=(0.62)(60)0.76, which equals approximately 13.92 micrometers. Since the first vertical line is in the center, this number should be divided by 2, which yields a thickness of 6.96 micrometers; see paragraph [0039]).
Examiner notes that the proportionality factor “a” as used in the equation above is stated to be within a range of 0.50 to 0.62 (see paragraph [0039]). Thus, different values within this range can be used to yield the thickness value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche in view of Skrobis to make the thickness of the first facet 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers and 6 to 15 micrometers at distances of 10 and 60 micrometers from the substrate tip respectively 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the facets “may” be configured such that the thicknesses range between 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers and 6 to 15 micrometers respectively (see instant specification paragraph [0042]). Lastly, Skrobis discloses that the aforementioned thicknesses provide adequate edge strength without sacrificing cutting quality; i.e., greater thicknesses have higher cutting force which can result in discomfort, whereas too low a thickness can result in inadequate strength (see paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Skrobis further discloses wherein T2,10 has a value of 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers (using the provided equation w=adn, the thickness is found by w=(0.5)(10)0.76, which equals approximately 2.88 micrometers. Since the first vertical line is in the center, this number should be divided by 2, which yields a thickness of 1.44 micrometers; see paragraph [0039]), and T2,60 has a value of 3.5 to 8 micrometers (using the provided equation w=adn, the thickness is found by w=(0.62)(60)0.76, which equals approximately 13.92 micrometers. Since the first vertical line is in the center, this number should be divided by 2, which yields a thickness of 6.96 micrometers; see paragraph [0039]).
Examiner notes that the proportionality factor “a” as used in the equation above is stated to be within a range of 0.50 to 0.62 (see paragraph [0039]). Thus, different values within this range can be used to yield the thickness value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche in view of Skrobis to make the thickness of the second facet 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers and 3.5 to 8 micrometers at distances of 10 and 60 micrometers from the substrate tip respectively 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the facets “may” be configured such that the thicknesses range between 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers and 3.5 to 8 micrometers respectively (see instant specification paragraph [0042]). Lastly, Skrobis discloses that the aforementioned thicknesses provide adequate edge strength without sacrificing cutting quality; i.e., greater thicknesses have higher cutting force which can result in discomfort, whereas too low a thickness can result in inadequate strength (see paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Gluche discloses a razor blade comprising: a substrate comprising a substrate edge (blade body 15 comprises first face 2 and second face 3, which is opposite first face 2; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3a) with a substrate tip formed at an end portion (cutting edge 4 is formed at an end where first face 2 and second face 3 intersect; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3a), wherein the substrate includes: a first facet extending from the substrate tip to one side (primary bevel 7 extends from cutting edge 4; see figs. 3a-3b); a second facet extending from the substrate tip to the other side (secondary bevel 5 extends from the other side of cutting edge 4; see figs. 3a-3b); a third facet extending from the first facet (first surface 9 extends from primary bevel 7; see figs. 3a-3b); and a fourth facet extending from the second facet (upper surface 8; see figs. 3a-3b), and wherein a first horizontal line perpendicular to a first vertical line (the first vertical line divides blade body 15 asymmetrically in two and passes through cutting edge 4; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above) that bisects the substrate and passes through the substrate tip passes through a first point where the first facet and the third facet meet (intersecting line 12 is perpendicular with respect to the first vertical line and connects primary bevel 7 with first surface 9; see paragraph [0060] and figs. 3a-3b), wherein a second horizontal line perpendicular to the first vertical line passes through a second point where the second facet and the fourth facet meet (intersecting line 11 is perpendicular with respect to the first vertical line and connects secondary bevel 5 to upper surface 8; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3b), a first vertical distance, which is a distance from the substrate tip to the first horizontal line (d1 marks the distance from cutting edge 4 to intersecting line 12; see paragraph [0061] and figs. 3a-3b), a second vertical distance, which is a distance from the substrate tip to the second horizontal line (d2 marks the distance from cutting edge 4 to intersecting line 11; see paragraph [0061] and figs. 3a-3b), wherein a second vertical line bisects a region between the third facet and the fourth facet (the second vertical line which crosses a region between first surface 9 and upper surface 8; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above), wherein a substrate tip is offset from the second vertical line in a direction perpendicular thereto (see annotated portion of fig. 3b above), a thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet with respect to the first vertical line (a ratio of thickness greater than 1 suggests that the first and second facets are not equidistant from the first vertical line. Since primary bevel 7 and secondary bevel 5 are spaced differently from the first vertical line, the ratio of thickness should be above 1; see fig. 3b), wherein the offset substrate tip defines a facing edge and a non-facing edge (secondary bevel 5 may correspond to a facing edge and primary bevel 7 may correspond to a non-facing edge during a shaving operation; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above), the facing edge corresponding to a thinner edge region and the non-facing edge corresponding to a thicker edge region (secondary bevel 5 is thinner than primary bevel 7; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above).
Gluche does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers to 350 micrometers, wherein the second vertical distance is 200 micrometers to 400 micrometers.
Shen discloses wherein the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers to 350 micrometers (third facet 44 may have a length from 8 microns to 150 microns; see paragraph [0039] and figs. 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche in view of Shen to make the first vertical distance 150 micrometers to 350 micrometers 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the first vertical distance “may” be 150 to 350 micrometers (see instant specification paragraph [0033]).
Skrobis discloses wherein the second vertical distance is 200 micrometers to 400 micrometers (distance 44a is about 175 to 400 micrometers from blade tip 41; see paragraph [0056] and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Gluche in view of Skrobis to make the second vertical distance 200 micrometers to 400 micrometers 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the second vertical distance “may” be 150 to 400 micrometers (see instant specification paragraph [0033]).
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein a thickness of the first facet is thicker than a thickness of the second facet at D16 (as modified, the thickness of primary bevel 7 is thicker than that of secondary bevel 5; see fig. 3b), and wherein the first vertical distance is greater than a difference between the first vertical distance and the second vertical distance (as modified to make the first vertical distance 150 microns, the first vertical distance is larger than the difference between the first and second vertical distances).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate tip is offset from the second vertical line by 1.7-20 µm, wherein the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D16 is 1.05 to 2.72, and wherein the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D60 is 1.05 to 2.13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Gluche to make the substrate tip formed 1.7 micrometers to 20 micrometers away from the second vertical line 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in the annotated portion of fig. 3b above, the substrate tip (cutting edge 4) is formed away from the second vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific distance within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the substrate tip “may” be formed 1.7 to 20 micrometers away from the second vertical line (see instant specification paragraph [0035]). Additionally, since the second vertical line is only required to bisect a region between the third and fourth facets and be offset from the substrate tip, the second vertical line could be placed arbitrarily to fall within the recited distances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D16 is 1.05 to 2.72 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in fig. 3b, the device of Gluche has first and second facets which are formed at different distances from the first vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific ratio within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device since the facets are formed substantially the same as that of the instant invention. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the ratio “may” be between 1.05 to 2.72 (see instant specification paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gluche to make the thickness ratio of the first facet and the second facet at D60 is 1.05 to 2.13 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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, as shown in fig. 3b, the device of Gluche has first and second facets which are formed at different distances from the first vertical line; it does not appear that modifying Gluche to have a specific ratio within the claimed range would change the overall structure or function of the device since the facets are formed substantially the same as that of the instant invention. Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the ratio “may” be between 1.05 to 2.13 (see instant specification paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 16, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Skrobis further discloses wherein when a thickness of the second facet at Da with respect to the first vertical line is defined as T2,a micrometer, T2,a satisfies the following Equation 2:
(Equation 2)
T2,a= m x (an)
(0.2 ≤ m ≤ 0.52, 0.45 ≤ n ≤ 0.99, 10 ≤ a ≤ 60) (the thickness in micrometers may be found using the equation w=adn, where “a” is a proportionality factor ranging from 0.5 to 0.62, “d” is the distance in micrometers from the blade tip, and “n” is a constant ranging from 0.76 to 0.80; see paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Gluche in view of Skrobis to use the above equation to define a thickness of the facet at a point “a” micrometer from the substrate tip. Skrobis discloses an equation that is substantially identical, where the variable “a” corresponds to “m” in the instant application, “d” corresponds to “a”, and “n” remains the same. Using this equation, Skrobis teaches that the thickness w in micrometers can be calculated. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the ranges of the constants to those recited, 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 claimed range, instead indicating that the thickness of the second facet at Da with respect to the first vertical line “may” satisfy equation 2 (see instant specification paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 16 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein a first thickness difference between T1,10 (calculated by ((0.6)(10)0.76)/2= 1.73 micrometers) and T2,10 (calculated by ((0.5)(10)0.76)/2= 1.44 micrometers – thus the difference is 0.29 micrometers) is less than a second thickness difference between T1,60 (calculated by ((0.62)(60)0.76)/2= 6.96 micrometers) and T2,60 (calculated by ((0.52)(60)0.76)/2= 5.84 micrometers – thus the difference is 1.12 micrometers; the first thickness difference is less than the second thickness difference).
Regarding claim 18, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein at a first distance from the substrate tip corresponding to a region adjacent the substrate tip associated with initial penetration, a thickness difference between the first facet and the second facet is less than a thickness difference at a second distance corresponding to a cutting region, such that the blade transitions from a penetration-dominant configuration to a cutting-resistance-reducing configuration (at a first distance further from cutting edge 4, a difference in thickness between primary bevel 7 and secondary bevel 5 is less than a thickness difference between primary bevel 7 and secondary bevel 5 at a second distance closer to cutting edge 4; see fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 19, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses wherein, at a first position adjacent the substrate tip, a thickness of the first facet with respect to the first vertical line is greater than a thickness of the second facet (with respect to the first vertical line, at a first position, primary bevel 7 has a greater thickness than secondary bevel 5; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above) and a thickness of the first facet with respect to the second vertical line is less than a thickness of the second facet (with respect to the second vertical line, primary bevel 5 has a lesser thickness than secondary bevel 5; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above), and wherein, at a second position farther from the substrate tip than the first position, a thickness of the first facet with respect to the first vertical line is greater than a thickness of the second facet (with respect to the first vertical line, at a second position farther from cutting edge 4, primary bevel 7 has a greater thickness than secondary bevel 5; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above) and the thickness of the first facet with respect to the second vertical line is greater than the thickness of the second facet (with respect to the second vertical line, at a second position farther from cutting edge 4, primary bevel 7 has a greater thickness than secondary bevel 5; see annotated portion of fig. 3b above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-19 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
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