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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 20, “T250” is missing after “thickness”.
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 8-12 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.
Claims 8-12 recite the limitation "the thickness" without first reciting “a thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun Ju Lee et al. (US 20210094199 A1 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Ioannis Papatriantafyllou et al. (EP 3372361 A1 – hereinafter Papatriantafyllou) and Peter Gluche et al. (EP 3895859 A1 – hereinafter Gluche).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a razor blade comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1, Substrate
10) comprising a cutting edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 11) formed at a tip (Fig. 1, Tip 12), wherein: a thickness T4 (Fig. 1, T4) of the substrate measured at a distance of 4 μm from the tip is between 1.00 μm and 1.70 μm (T4 is 1.53 μm in Table 1).
Lee does not teach a thickness T250 of the substrate measured at a distance of 250 μm from the tip is between 44 μm and 60.56 μm, a ratio of the T4 to the T250 is 0.032 or less, and a rate of increase in thickness in a first section in a region distanced 40 μm to 100 μm from the tip is less than a rate of increase in thickness in a second section in a region distanced 100 μm or more from the tip.
However, Papatriantafyllou teaches a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 41.69 μm to
68.96 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 44 μm and 60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 44 μm and 60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou. When the thickness is be between 44 μm and 60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm (as taught by Papatriantafyllou) and the thickness is between 1.53 μm (as taught by Lee) at a distance of 4 μm, the resulting ratio T4/T200 is between 0.025 and 0.035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify this ratio to be less than 0.032 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0054] indicating the ratio “may” be within the claimed range) and 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).
Additionally, Gluche teaches a razor blade where a rate of increase in thickness in a first section in a region distanced 40 μm to 100 μm (Fig. 3, Secondary Bevel 6, which lies from 7 μm [0026] to 100 μm) from the tip is less than a rate of increase in thickness in a second section (Fig. 3, Tertiary Bevel 7, which lies past the end of Secondary Bevel 6 at 100 μm) in a region distanced 100 μm or more from the tip (Fig. 3, tip defined by Cutting Edge 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Lee and Papatriantafyllou to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Gluche. Doing so is beneficial as when the angle which defines the rate of increase in the secondary section is greater than the angle which defines the rate of increase in the first section, a stable cutting edge and good cutting performance is provided (Gluche; [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein an angle between one surface of the substrate and a central axis of the substrate in the first section (Gluche; Fig. 3, angle between Bisecting Line 260 and Secondary Bevel 6 derived from the second wedge angle) is smaller than an angle between the one surface of the substrate and the central axis in the second section (Gluche; Fig. 3, angle between Bisecting Line 260 and Tertiary Bevel 7 derived from the third wedge angle– See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 2, wherein, in the first section, the angle between the one surface of the substrate and the central axis is between 4.76 degrees and 6.65 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche to have an angle between the one surface of the substrate and the central axis is between 4.76 degrees and 6.65 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche would not operate differently with the claimed angle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 2, wherein, in the second section, the angle between the one surface of the substrate and the central axis is between of 5.9 degrees and 6.95 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche to have an angle between the one surface of the substrate and the central axis is between of 5.9 degrees and 6.95 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche would not operate differently with the claimed angle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein one surface of the substrate in the first section and one surface of the substrate in the second section form an obtuse angle (Fig. 3, angle between Secondary Bevel 6 and Tertiary Bevel 7 is visibly between 90 degrees and 80 degrees – See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the T4 to the T250 is between 0.017 and 0.032. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche to have an ratio of the T4 to the T250 is between 0.017 and 0.032 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, further comprising a coating layer stacked on the substrate (Fig. 3, First Coating Layer 20).
The combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche already teaches wherein a rate of increase in thickness in a third section in a region 40 μm to 100 μm away from a tip of the coating layer is lower than a rate of increase in thickness in a fourth section in a region 100 μm or more from the tip of the coating layer (See the rejection of claim 1 above – Gluche teaches the rate of increase in thickness relationship between a third and fourth section (equivalent to the first and second sections above, respectively), and Lee teaches a constant thickness coating layer, which would not alter the rate of increase in thickness relationship between a third and fourth section taught by Gluche).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 7, wherein, in a fifth section (Fig. 1, section within 40 μm of the tip) closer to the tip of the coating layer than the third section, a ratio of the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer to the thickness of the substrate is 1.075 or more (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, where a thickness T4 is 1.53 μm, and First Coating Layer 20 is a minimum of 150 nanometers thick, the ratio is 1.83:1.53, or 1.19:1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 8, wherein a ratio of the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer to the thickness of the substrate in the third section and the fourth section are less than that in the fifth section (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the thickness of the substrate increases in the third and fourth sections from the fifth section while the thickness of the coating remains constant, so the ratio will decrease as one moves away from the tip from the fifth section and into the third and fourth section).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 7, wherein, at a distance of 4 μm from the tip of the coating layer, the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer is between 1.36 μm and 2.28 μm (Fig. 1, T4 is 1.53 μm. Fig. 3, First Coating Layer 20 is 150 to 300 nanometers, for an overall thickness of 1.83 μm to 2.13 μm).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 7, wherein, at a distance of 250 μm from the tip of the coating layer, the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer is between 44.49 μm and 61.24 μm.
However, Papatriantafyllou further teaches a razor blade wherein, at a distance of 250 μm from the tip of the coating layer, the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer is between 41.71 μm and 69.46 μm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 44.49 μm and 61.24 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 44.49 μm and 61.24 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche already teaches the razor blade of claim 7, wherein a ratio of the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer at a distance of 4 μm from the tip of the coating layer to the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer at a distance of 250 μm from the tip of the coating layer is between 0.03 and 0.048 (Using a thickness of 1.83 μm to 2.13 μm at a distance of 4 μm (See the rejection of claim 10 above) and a thickness of 44.49 to 61.24 μm at a distance of 250 μm (See the rejection of claim 11 above), the ratio ranges from 0.03 to 0.048). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify this ratio to be between 0.022 and 0.047 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0069] indicating the ratio “may” be within the claimed range) and 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).
Regarding claim 13, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes: a plurality of first facets ([0025]; there is a first facet on both sides of the tip,
therefore there is a plurality of first facets); a plurality of second facets formed between the tip
and the plurality of first facets ([0025]; there is a second facet on both sides of the tip, therefore
there is a plurality of first facets); a facet brake region having facet brake spots where the
plurality of first facets and the plurality of second facets intersect ([0025]; the region where the
first and second facets overlap is the facet brake region. The facets are formed by an abrading
wheel which would inherently create scratches in the material, the facet brake spots being where
those scratches intersect); and a first facet region including the plurality of first facets and not
including the plurality of second facets ([0025]; the second facets overlap a portion of the first facets, so there is a region which includes only the first facets).
Regarding claim 14, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 13, wherein the facet
brake region is formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip ([0027]; the first facet is formed
within 500 μm, so the facet brake region must also be within 500 μm). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet
brake region to be formed instead within a distance of 420 μm as applicant appears to have
placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0083]) and
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).
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 13, wherein the facet
brake region is formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip ([0027]; the first facet is formed
within 500 μm, so the facet brake region must also be within 500 μm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet brake region to be formed instead at a distance of 16 μm from the tip as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0060]) and 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).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, comprising a second
facet region including the plurality of second facets but not including the plurality of first facets
([0025]; the second facets overlap a portion of the first facets, so there is a region which includes
only the second facets)).
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 13, wherein a surface
roughness value of the facet brake region is lower than a surface roughness value of the first
facet region ([0026]; the first facet region is formed using rougher coarser grains on an abrading
wheel than the second facet region, and so it has a higher surface roughness. The facet brake
region is a blend of both, so the surface roughness would be lower in the facet brake region than
in the first facet region).
Regarding claim 20, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the thickness T250 is between 47.5 μm and 60.56 μm.
However, Papatriantafyllou teaches a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 41.69 μm to
68.96 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 47.5 μm and 60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 47.5 μm and 60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun Ju Lee et al. (US 20210094199 A1 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Ioannis Papatriantafyllou et al. (EP 3372361 A1 – hereinafter Papatriantafyllou) and Peter Gluche et al. (EP 3895859 A1 – hereinafter Gluche) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ralph Gretzschel et al. (EP 3895861 A1 – hereinafter Gretzschel) and Vadim Daskal et al. (US 7396484 B2 – hereinafter Daskal).
Regarding claim 18, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 17, wherein the surface roughness value (Ra) of the facet brake region is 300 nm or less, and the surface roughness value (Ra) of the first facet region is 300 nm to 400 nm.
However, Gretzschel teaches a blade with a region with a surface roughness of less than 100 nm ([0047]), and Daskal teaches a blade with a region with a surface roughness of 352 nm (Table V).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet brake region to have a surface roughness of 300nm or
less as taught by Gretzschel, and to modify the first facet region to have a surface roughness of
between 300 nm and 400 nm as taught by Daskal as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Daskal identifies surface roughness as a
result effective variable as it needs to be optimized so that the blade does not snag or snare the
skin (Daskal; Col 23 lines 61-67).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun Ju Lee et al. (US 20210094199 A1 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Ioannis Papatriantafyllou et al. (EP 3372361 A1 – hereinafter Papatriantafyllou) and Peter Gluche et al. (EP 3895859 A1 – hereinafter Gluche) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Vadim Daskal et al. (US 7396484 B2 – hereinafter Daskal).
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche does not teach the razor blade of claim 17, wherein the surface roughness value (Ra) of the facet brake region is 150 nm to 280 nm.
However, Daskal teaches a razor blade with a region having a surface roughness ranging
between 316 nm and 492 nm (Table V).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the facet brake region of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, and Gluche to have a surface roughness of between 316 nm and 492 nm as taught by Daskal, and to further modify the facet brake region to instead have a surface roughness of between 150 nm and 280 nm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Daskal identifies surface roughness as a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized so that the blade does not snag or snare the skin (Daskal; Col 23 lines 61-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights