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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 12/15/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 16-19 have been added. Claims 1-19 remain in the application with claim 10 being withdrawn as directed toward a non-elected invention non-elected in paper filed 4/28/25. Hence, claims 1-9 and 11-19 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 12/5/25, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5,16 and 18 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 2, the term “the coating” lacks antecedent basis as the term “lubricious coating” is recited in the independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the term “a plasma nozzle” in unclear and confusing as to whether or not the term “a plasma nozzle” is the same plasma nozzle recited in claim 1 or another plasma nozzle. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected as being based upon rejected base claim 4.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, the term “the intersection” lacks antecedent basis as the claim from which it depends on recites “into” not intersection.
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.
Claims 1,4-6,9,11,12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777).
Holmes et al. (3,283,117) teaches a method of coating cutting edges of sharpened instruments with electrical plasma jet or gas stream including razor blades (col. 1, lines 10-20). The coating is applied to the cutting edges simultaneously with the exposure of the electrical jet (col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 5). The coating can include polytetrafluoroethylene (col. 2, line 69 - col. 3, line 1) at a 2.5% powder dispersion in water (Example 1).
Holmes et al. (3,283,117) fails to teach adding the dispersion downstream of the plasma stream.
Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) teaches a method of applying a plasma sprayed coating using liquid injection whereby the coating material is introduced or injected into the plasma spray downstream of the plasma (abstract and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holmes et al. (3,283,117) plasma spray process to include the coating material downstream of the plasms as evidenced by Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) with the expectation of producing similar success, i.e. coating applied to a substrate.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “lubricious” coating is met as both the instant invention and Holmes et al. (3,283,117) teaches the same material PTFE.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Holmes et al. (3,283,117) depicts more than one plasma spray gun and that it is at an angle to the center plane of the razor (Fig. 4,5a and col. 3, lines 35-38 whereby plasma coating at a 15 degree angle to horizontal).
Regarding claim 6, Holmes et al. (3,283,117) teaches the coating can include polytetrafluoroethylene (col. 2, line 69 - col. 3, line 1).
Regarding claim 9, Holmes et al. (3,283,117) teaches a method of coating cutting edges of sharpened instruments with electrical plasma jet or gas stream including razor blades (col. 1, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 11, the fluid stream of the dispersion has a width less than the plasma stream (see Fig. 1 of Skoog et al. (2006/0222777)).
Regarding claims 12,14,16 and 18, the claims recite a plasma stream width, plasma distance from the substrate, spray nozzle distance from plasma and distance of intersection of fluid stream and plasma. While the Examiner acknowledges the fact that the reference is silent with respect to these variables, the Examiner take the position that these would be a matter of design choice by a practitioner in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner takes the position that any contaminants of the razor blade would be removed by the plasma stream.
Regarding claim 17, Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) teaches a liquid injector (38) and atomization nozzle (39) which would mee the claimed “spray nozzle” (Fig. 1 and [0030]).
Claims 2,3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) in combination with Vlachos et al. (9,393,588).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) are incorporated here.
Holmes et al. (3,283,117) fails to teach the coating to be along the center plane, sintering the deposited coating and the dispersion being 1-2% solids.
Vlachos et al. (9,393,588) teaches a method of forming a lubricating coating on a razor blade including a colloidal dispersion of a polymer having less than 2% in weight of polymer particles and spraying the coating on the razor blade surface and sintering the polymer (abstract). The polymer is a PTFE and sintering is the final step of the process (col. 6, lines 26-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) process to include a coating having less than 2% solids and sintering after coating as taught by Vlachos et al. (9,393,588) with the expectation of achieving a coating avoiding corrosion.
Regarding claim 2, Vlachos et al. (9,393,588) teaches sintering the coating after being applied to the razor blade surface (col. 6, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 3, Vlachos et al. (9,393,588) depicts the coating to be along the center plane of the razor blade (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Vlachos et al. (9,393,588) teaches he dispersion to include less than 2% polymer particles (claimed solids) (abstract).
Claim 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) in combination with Dobbyn et al. (2009/0068375).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) are incorporated here.
Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) fails to teach the plasma being an atmospheric plasma.
Dobbyn et al. (2009/0068375) teaches an atmospheric pressure plasma coating process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holmes et al. (3,283,117) process to perform the plasma in atmospherics pressures as taught by Dobbyn et al. (2009/0068375) with the expectation of improving uniformity of the coating thereon.
Regarding claim 12, Dobbyn et al. (2009/0068375) teaches plasma to substrate distances of 3-5mm [0071] which absent a showing of criticality thereof regarding the distance would be suggestive of the claimed 12 mm to produce similar success.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) in combination with Bell (2017/0218495).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) are incorporated here.
Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) fails to teach the fluid stream to intersect the plasma stream at an angle of 30-50 degrees.
Bell (2017/0218495) teaches applying as coating to a substrate with a plasma stream and injecting coating material (71) into the plasma stream by port (84) at an angle including 30-50 degrees (Abstract, Fig. 5 and [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holmes et al. (3,283,117) in combination with Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) plasma coating process to introduce the coating material at an angle including the claimed 30-50 degrees as evidenced by Bell (2017/0218495) with the expectation of producing similar success, i.e. a coating layer applied to a substrate using a plasma spray process.
Regarding claim 19, Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) teaches a liquid injector (38) and atomization nozzle (39) which would mee the claimed “spray nozzle” (Fig. 1 and [0030]).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-19 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.
Applicant argued Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) failed to teach a lubricous coating of fluoropolymer to a cutting blade as it teaches thermal coating parts for heat engine parts and these materials are not a fluid stream containing a dispersion of fluoropolymer.
The Examiner agrees. While Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) teaches coating a different substrate with different materials, the reference is relied upon for teaching of supplying a coating to a plasma downstream and not for the particular coating and substrate as this is relied upon in the primary reference directed to Holmes et al. (3,283,117).
Applicant argued Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) fails to teach the fluid stream is less than the plasma stream (claim 11).
The Examiner disagrees. As detailed in the rejection and depicted in Fig. 1 of Skoog et al. (2006/0222777) the liquid injection from nozzle 3(39) is clearly less than the width of the plasma (58) and hence would meet the claimed limitation as detailed above.
Applicant argued the plasma stream width, plasma nozzle distance and removing oxide layer, dust, grease oil, etc. with the plasma.
The Examiner disagrees. Regarding the removal of oxide layers, dust, grease, oil etc., the Examiner has taken the position that the plasma would inherently remove these from the blade due to the nature of the plasma.
Regarding the width and distances of plasma nozzle from the blade (D2), distance of plasma intersection with fluid dispersion (D3) and distance of spray nozzle from intersection of fluid dispersion (D1), the Examiner has taken the position that these are a matter of design choice by one practicing in the invention and would be expected to produce similar results absent a showing to the contrary.
Applicant argued the prior art teaches advantages associate with the combination of claims 14,16 18 and these features promote the following benefit of the PTFE dispersion entering the plasma stream close to the cutting edge does not undergo excessive thermal degradation.
The Examiner appreciates the secondary consideration of non-obviousness and would entertain a claim encompassing all these features for allowance going forward (claims 14,16 and 18).
Applicant argued Bell (2017/0218495) fails to express the teaching of claim 13 as well as is applies “hardface powder” into a fluid stream and not a fluid stream of fluoropolymer.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner agrees. While Bell (2017/0218495) teaches coating a different substrate with different materials, the reference is relied upon for teaching applying a coating to a substrate with a plasma stream and injecting coating material (71) into the plasma stream by port (84) at an angle including 30-50 degrees (Abstract, Fig. 5 and [0070]) and not for the particular coating and substrate as this is relied upon in the primary reference directed to Holmes et al. (3,283,117).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715