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, 12, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at the last line, “≤m≤0.7” should be amended to read “0.3≤m≤0.7” per paragraph [0043] of the instant specification
Claim 12:
“T1,10 has a value of 1.11 to 2.44” should be amended to read “T1,10 has a value of 1.11 to 2.44 micrometers” (at least claim 13 requires similar corrections with respect to T2,10)
“T1,60 has a value of 6 to 15” should be amended to read “T1,60 has a value of 6 to 15 micrometers”
Claim 13: “T2,60 has a value of 3.5 to 8” should be amended to read “T2,60 has a value of 3.5 to 8 micrometers”
Claim 15:
the second equation required to find the values for T2,10 and T2,60 is not recited until claim 16; Examiner recommends amending claim 15 to depend from claim 16
the ranges for the constants in both the first and second equations recite ranges which overlap – that is, depending on the values selected, the first and second thickness differences may potentially be the same, or the second thickness difference may be smaller than the first thickness difference
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4-16 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 (cutting blade 1; see figs. 3a-3b) comprising: a substrate (blade body 15; see fig. 1) 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 (first surface 9; see figs. 3a-3b) 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]).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gluche does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers to 350 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]).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose 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)
≤m≤0.7, 0.6≤n≤0.99, 10≤a≤60).
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)
≤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.
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 7, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Gluche does not explicitly disclose that the substrate tip is formed 1.7 micrometers to 20 micrometers away from the second vertical line.
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.
Regarding claim 8, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Gluche as modified further discloses 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), and 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 that the angle is between 0.5 degrees and 4 degrees.
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 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 that the angle is between 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 further 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 of the first facet and the second facet 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 further 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 1.05 to 2.72 (see instant specification paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, 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 that 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 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 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 (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 (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 further 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 (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 (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 further 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 (cutting blade 1; see figs. 3a-3b) comprising: a substrate (blade body 15; see fig. 1) 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; 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 below) 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), wherein 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), wherein 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gluche does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vertical distance is 150 micrometers to 350 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]).
Gluche as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a second vertical distance is 200 micrometers to 400 micrometers, and wherein the second vertical distance is greater than the first vertical distance, 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)
≤m≤0.7, 0.6≤n≤0.99, 10≤a≤60).
Skrobis discloses wherein a 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), and wherein the second vertical distance is greater than the first vertical distance (as modified, distance 44a is larger than the first vertical distance; see paragraph [0056] and fig. 3), 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)
≤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 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]). It also 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.
Regarding claim 15, Gluche as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Skrobis further discloses wherein a first thickness difference between T1,10 and T2,10 (using the provided equation w=adn, the thickness T1,10 is found by w=(0.5)(10)0.76, which equals approximately 2.88 micrometers. The thickness T2,10 can be found using the same equation, resulting in w=(0.55)(10)0.76, which equals approximately 3.16 micrometers, thus yielding a first thickness difference of 0.28 micrometers) is less than a second thickness difference between T1,60 and T2,60 (using the provided equation w=adn, the thickness T1,60 is found by w=(0.6)(60)0.76, which equals approximately 13.48 micrometers. The thickness T2,60 can be found using the same equation, resulting in w=(0.62)(60)0.76, which equals approximately 13.92 micrometers, thus yielding a second thickness difference of 0.44 micrometers).
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 first thickness difference smaller than the second thickness difference. 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]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try various differences in thickness to find the optimal balance between cutting performance and blade strength.
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]).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights