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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations "between about 1.0 µm and about 4.0 µm" and "n represents an integer between 2 and about 1500". Examiner suggests positively reciting a range, instead of reciting "about…to…about".
Similarly, Claims 17-18 & 20 recite ranges from a point to "about" a point. Examiner suggests positively reciting a range, instead of reciting "about…to…about".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-35 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 16:
the limitation "substrate edge portion" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes a "portion", rendering the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any part of the substrate edge;
Ln 12 & 18, the limitation "coating" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether this is a coating distinct from the previously recited "silicon-containing coating", or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the "coating" may be either the previously recited coating or a different, distinct coating;
Ln 17, the limitation "the tethering group" lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation "the silicon-containing coating comprises, measured over an area of about 0.01 µm2, an average of about 0.05 to about 4 linear silicon-containing polymers per nm2" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim how the measurement is to be taken, whether to count individual polymers or to measure the thickness of the polymer coating. Examiner notes that individual polymers may be constructed in any one of a plurality of manners, resulting in polymers of varying thickness, which bear directly on the claim. Additionally, the claim is not specific as to how to measure 0.05 linear silicon-containing polymers, since this, if taken as a count of the polymer and not the thickness, would result in counting less than an integer of polymers. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the measurement to be made is the thickness of the polymer coating and not the individual polymer themselves. In this context, given 1.0–nm to equal 10–Angstrom (Å), the thickness of the coating, given an average polymer thickness of 0.4nm, would equal a range of 0.02–nm to 1.6–nm, or 0.2–Å to 16–Å.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisby, et alia (US 2018/0043561), hereinafter Nisby, in view of Dow Corning (GB1242201), hereinafter Dow, and further in view of Hardman, et al (US 2004/0209784), hereafter Hardman.
Regarding Claim 16, Nisby discloses a cartridge for a handheld shaving device (as illustrated in at least Fig 8) comprising at least one razor blade (10) (Para [0030], Ln 1-2, as illustrated in at least Fig 1), wherein the at least one razor blade comprises a stainless steel razor blade substrate (11) (Para [0030], Ln 2) terminating in a substrate edge portion (as illustrated in at least Fig 1),
wherein the substrate edge portion has a continuously tapering geometry with two substrate sides converging towards a substrate edge and forming a substrate tip (as illustrated in at least Fig 1);
wherein the substrate edge portion has a thickness of between about 1.0 µm and about 4.0 µm measured at a distance of 5 µm from the substrate tip (Para [0030], Ln 6-10).
Nisby is silent to a silicon-containing coating. Dow teaches, the substrate edge portion is provided with a silicon-containing coating (Col 1, Ln 10-16). Dow further teaches this coating increases shaving comfort (Col 2, Ln 50-53).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge for a handheld shaving device comprising at least one razor blade, as disclosed by Nisby, to include the substrate edge portion provided with a silicon-containing coating, as taught by Dow, in order to increase shaving comfort.
Dow further teaches wherein the silicon-containing coating comprises a plurality of linear silicon-containing polymers which are
i) covalently bonded to the substrate edge portion and/or
ii) covalently bonded to a coating provided on the substrate edge portion;
wherein the linear silicon-containing polymers are selected from compounds of formula (I),
PNG
media_image1.png
186
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(I)
wherein R1 and R2 independently from each other represent H, a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C6 alkyl group or a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C12 aryl group;
R3 represents the tethering group covalently binding the linear silicon-containing polymer to the substrate edge portion and/or the coating provided on the substrate edge portion;
R4 represents a polymer end group (Col 2, Ln 76 through Col 3, Ln 21);
and n represents an integer between 2 and about 1500 (Col 3, Ln 27).
This compound is well known in the art, as evidenced by Hardman (Para.s [0023] though [0026].
Regarding Claim 17, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Dow further teaches the silicon-containing coating has a maximum difference in thickness, measured over an area of about 0.1 mm2, of at most about 150 nm (Col 5, Ln 8-11).
Regarding Claim 18, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Dow further teaches the silicon-containing coating comprises a thickness of less than 6000–Å, which is within the claimed range of the silicon-containing coating comprises, measured over an area of about 0.01 µm2, an average of about 0.05 to about 4 linear silicon-containing polymers per nm2, at an equivalent thickness of 0.2–Å to 16–Å, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 19, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Dow further teaches the plurality of linear silicon-containing polymers is spaced to form a liquid-like surface. Examiner notes the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION states "[t]he term "liquid-like surface" within this disclosure is to be understood as well-established in the field of coatings and, in particular, may refer to a surface provided by a plurality of silicone-based polymer chains wherein a proximal end of the polymer chain is bound to a surface and wherein the rest of the polymer chain extends from said surface such that the distal ends of the polymer chain may are free to be moved, bent or rotated". Examiner further notes that as Dow teaches a silicone-based polymer coating, this coating would be recognize by a skilled Artisan as consistent with the claims.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisby, in view of Dow and Hardman, and further in view of Liu, et alia (US 2016/0200941), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 20, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize this coating having a coefficient of friction of between about 0.005 and about 2, as evidenced by Liu (Para [0104), Ln 1-7).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisby, in view of Dow and Hardman, and further in view of Voll, et alia (US 2024/0344422), hereinafter Voll.
Regarding Claim 21, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize this coating is omniphobic, as evidenced by Voll (Para [0136], Ln (1-5), Para [0137], Ln 1-2).
Regarding Claim 22, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. Dow further teaches selection of R1 and R2 are independently selected from the group consisting of H and a substituted or unsubstituted C1 -C4 alkyl group (Col 2, Ln 80-85).
Regarding Claim 23, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize for this coating R1 and R2 are independently selected from the group consisting of H, methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, and isopropyl, as evidenced by Hardman (Para [0009], Ln (8-18).
Regarding Claim 24,
R3 representing the tethering group is selected from an oxygen atom, a carbonaceous residue, a nitrogenous residue, a phosphor-containing residue or a silicon-containing residue.
Regarding Claim 25, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize for this coating R4 representing the polymer end group is selected from the group consisting of H, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, and a substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl group, as evidenced by Hardman (Para [0024], Ln 1-2).
Regarding Claim 26, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize for this coating R4 representing the polymer end group is 3-(2-aminoethyl) aminopropyldimethoxysiloxyl group, also well known in the art as an amino functional siloxane, as evidenced by Hardman (Para 0013], Ln 4-9).
Regarding Claim 27, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize for this coating the plurality of linear silicon-containing polymers is selected from the group consisting of dimethylsiloxanes and methylhydrosiloxanes, as evidenced by Hardman (Para 0013], Ln 4-9).
Regarding Claim 28, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby discloses the stainless steel razor blade substrate, however Nisby is not explicit to the composition of the steel. Examiner notes that a skilled Artisan would recognize the availability of steel comprising at least 10 wt.-% Cr, as being well known in the art as the definition of stainless steel.
Regarding Claim 29, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. As stated above, Dow teaches the silicon-containing coating. A skilled Artisan would recognize for this coating the stainless steel razor blade substrate is surface-treated to comprise oxygen-containing groups capable of forming a covalent bond to the linear silicon-containing polymers, as evidenced by Hardman (Para [0023]).
Regarding Claim 30, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby further discloses the substrate edge portion is provided with a first coating a second coating provided on top of the first coating (Par 0035], Ln 3-4), while Dow teaches the second silicon-containing coating, as stated above. A skilled Artisan would recognize that the plurality of linear siliconcontaining polymers would be covalently bonded to the first coating by definition.
Regarding Claim 31, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby further discloses the first coating comprises a metal ceramic coating (Para [0036], Ln 2-4).
Regarding Claim 32, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby further discloses the metal ceramic coating comprises Ti and B; Ti, Band C ; or Ti, Band N (Para [0036], Ln 2-4 and Para [0037], Ln 5-6).
Regarding Claim 33, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby further discloses that first coating with chromium compounds are desirable in in order to facilitate bonding subsequent layers (Para 0036], Ln 1-4), however Nisby is not explicit to a Cr2O3-containing coating. Examiner notes that a skilled Artisan would recognize a Cr2O3-containing coating as consistent with the disclosure of Nisby to facilitate bonding subsequent layers.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge for a handheld shaving device comprising at least one razor blade, as taught by combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman, to include an initial a Cr2O3-containing coating, in order to facilitate bonding subsequent layers.
Regarding Claim 34, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby further discloses the first coating is a multilayer coating (Para [0035], Ln 3-4).
Regarding Claim 35, combined Nisby/Dow/Hardman teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Nisby further discloses the first coating is a multilayer coating comprising an inner metal ceramic layer (Para [0037], Ln 6-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,480,071 to Natarajan, et alia teaches polymer coatings.
US 6,684,513 to Clipstone, et alia teaches polymer coatings for razor blades.
US 2007/0124944 to Thoene, et alia teaches polymer coatings for razor blades.
WO 2010 001949 to Abe, et alia teaches polymer coatings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724