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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,694 in view of Park et al (US Publication 2011/0232100), herein referred to as Park US Patent 12,083,694. Note: Claims 2-11 are rejected by the claims of US Patent No. 12,083,694 alone, as indicated below in Table 1. Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 12,083,694 discloses a razor blade configured to cut hair as it is moved in a shaving direction (claim 1, lines 1-2), the razor blade comprising: a base portion (claim 1, line 3); a bent portion extending in a curved manner from one end of the base portion in the shaving direction (claim 1, lines 4-5), the bent portion comprising: a first side (claim 1, line 7); a second side opposing the first side in a width direction of the razor blade which is a direction perpendicular to the shaving direction (claim 1, lines 8-10); and an intermediate portion disposed at a center of the first side and the second side of the razor blade (claim 1, lines 11-12), and an edge portion extending from one end of the bent portion and comprising a convexly curved cutting edge (claim 1, lines 15-16), wherein a thickness (t) of the razor blade ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm (claim 1, lines 17-18), wherein a first separation distance (X) between a curved plane coinciding with a front surface of the base portion and a corresponding point along the cutting edge ranges from 0.3 mm to 0.85 mm (claim 1, lines 19-22 discloses the range of 0.3 mm to 1.00 mm which includes the claimed range of 0.3 mm to 0.85 mm), wherein the bent portion has a first inner curvature radius in the intermediate portion at the front surface of the razor blade (claim 1, lines 26-28), wherein the bent portion has a second inner curvature radius in the first side or the second side at the front surface of the razor blade ( claim 1, lines 28-30), and wherein the first inner curvature radius is larger than the second inner curvature radius (claim 1, lines 30-32). US Patent No. 12,083,694 does not require and fails to specifically disclose “wherein a value obtained by dividing the first separation distance (X) by the thickness (t) of the razor blade ranges from 4 to 10,” as set forth in claim 1, lines 17-18 of the present Application. However, claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,083,694 teaches each component of the claimed ratio, i.e., “the first separation distance (X)” and “the thickness (t) of the razor blade.” For example, taking a ratio of the bottom limit for each disclosed component (i.e., X = 0.3 mm and t = 0.05 mm) gives a value of 6 (wherein X/t = 0.3 mm/ 0.05 mm = 6). This value is in the claimed range of 4 to 10 for dividing the first separation distance (X) by the thickness (t) of the razor blade. Alternatively, taking a ratio of the upper limit of each disclosed component (i.e., X = 1.00 and t = 0.1 mm) gives a value of 10 (wherein X/t = 1.00 mm/ 0.1 mm). Moreover, taking a ratio of a further example of values from the taught ranges (e.g., X = 0.3 mm and t = 0.75 mm) gives a value of 4 (wherein X/t = 0.3 mm/ 0.75 mm). Additionally, Park teaches it is known in the art of razor blades formed with a compound curvature to having a first separation distance (X) of 0.85 mm (as set forth in 103 rejection below on page 9 of the present Office Action) and a thickness (e) of, e.g., 0.15 mm (para. 0047, lines 5-7), wherein a ratio of these values, i.e., X/t = 0.85 mm/ 0.15 mm = 5.66 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the razor blade of US Patent No. 12,083,694 with the teaching of Park such that a value obtained by dividing the first separation distance (X) by the thickness (t) of the razor blade ranges from 4 to 10 since Park specifically teaches these values are known and it would have been obvious to try any range of reasonable values that are known in the art so as to optimize the strength and performance characteristics of a razor blade of a given geometry and thickness.
Table 1 - Double Patenting Claim Map
Claim(s) of the Present Application
Claim(s) of US Patent No. 12,083,694
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
Claim 1, lines 23-25
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
10
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 1-11 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. Claim 1, line 1 recites, “[a] razor blade configured to cut hair as it is moved in a shaving direction.” The recitation of “it” renders the preamble of the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the word “it” refers to “[a] razor blade” or the “hair” the razor blade is configured to cut. For purposes of examination, “it” will be interpreted as referring to “[a] razor blade,” such that the preamble of the claim reads as, “[a] razor blade configured to cut hair as [[it]] --the razor blade-- is moved in a shaving direction.” Claim 1, lines 4-5 recite, “a bent portion extending in a curved manner from one end of the base portion in the shaving direction.” It is unclear if “in the shaving direction” describes the direction in which the bent portion curves from the one end of the base portion or if “from one end of the base portion in the shaving direction” describes a location on the base portion from which the bent portion extends. For purposes of examination, the aforementioned limitation will be interpreted as describing the direction in which the bent portion curves from the one end of the base portion. Claim 1, lines 14-16 recite, “where a first separation distance (X) between a curved plane coinciding with a front surface of the base portion and a corresponding point along the cutting edge ranges from 0.3 mm to 0.85 mm.” It is unclear if the “corresponding point along the cutting edge” is chosen with respect to a width of the razor blade (i.e., along Z-axis) or if the “corresponding point along the cutting edge” is chosen so as to be orthogonal to the curved plane coinciding with the front surface of the base portion. Claim 1, lines 19-20 recite, “wherein the bent portion has a first inner curvature radius in the intermediate portion at the front surface of the razor blade” [emphasis added]. As currently written, the recitation of “the front surface of the razor blade” is defined with respect to the base portion of the razor blade, not with respect to the bent portion. On the other hand, the intermediate portion belongs to the bent portion (as per claim 1, lines 9-10). However, the recitation of “a first inner curvature radius of the intermediate portion” appears to also defined with respect to the front surface of the base portion. While the bent portion of the razor blade extends from one end of the base portion, it is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of “at the front surface of the razor blade” since the front surface itself is planer and cannot have a radius. It is unclear what weight should be given to the recitation of “at the front surface of the razor blade” when determining where “a first inner curvature radius” of the intermediate portion is measured. Does Applicant intend for “at the front surface of the razor blade” to mean the radius of an arc along the bent portion that aligns with the front surface of the razor blade? For purposes of examination, the recitation of “wherein the bent portion has a first inner curvature radius in the intermediate portion at the front surface of the razor blade” will be interpreted as a first inner curvature radius of a front surface of the bent portion in the intermediate portion. Claim 1, lines 21-22 recite, “wherein the bent portion has a second inner curvature radius in the first side or the second side at the front surface of the razor blade.” It is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of “at the front surface of the razor blade” since the front surface itself is planer and cannot have a radius. It is unclear what weight should be given to the recitation of “at the front surface of the razor blade” when determining where “a second inner curvature radius” of the intermediate portion is measured. Does Applicant intend for “at the front surface of the razor blade” to mean the radius of an arc along the bent portion that aligns with the front surface of the razor blade? For purposes of examination, the recitation of “wherein the bent portion has a second inner curvature radius in the first side or the second side at the front surface of the razor blade” will be interpreted as a second inner curvature radius of the front surface of the bent portion in the first side or the second side at the front surface of the razor blade (the front surface of the bent portion being defined previously with respect to claim 1, lines 19-20, as set forth above). Claim 3 recites, “wherein the first separation distance (X) ranges from 0.37 mm to 0.86 mm.” This range does not further limit the range of 0.3 mm to 0.85 mm for the first separation distance “X” previously defined in claim 1. Rather, the values for both of the lower and upper limits of the first separation distance (X) shift upward such that, while the lower limit is within the previously claimed range defined in claim 1, the upper limit is not. Therefore, it is unclear what values for the range of first separation distance (X) can or cannot be included within the scope of claim 3 since 0.85 mm to 0.86 mm is outside of the 0.3 mm to 0.85 mm range previously defined in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best understood, claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US Publication 2011/0232100).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a razor blade (40) configured to cut hair as it (i.e., the razor blade) is moved in a shaving direction (para. 0044, lines 2-7), the razor blade comprising:
a base portion (46);
a bent portion (44) extending in a curved manner from one end of the base portion (annotated fig. 5) in the shaving direction (i.e., bent portion 44 curves in the shaving direction), the bent portion comprising: a first side (annotated fig. 7); a second side (annotated fig. 7) opposing the first side in a width direction of the razor blade which is a direction perpendicular to the shaving direction (Id.); and an intermediate portion (annotated fig. 7) disposed at a center of the first side and the second side of the razor blade (i.e., the first side corresponds to one end portion of the razor blade, the second side corresponds to the opposite end portion of the razor blade, and the intermediate portion is arranged between the first and second sides so as to extend across the width of the razor blade), and an edge portion (42) extending from one end of the bent portion (annotated fig. 5) and comprising a convexly curved cutting edge (422), wherein a thickness (“e”) of the razor blade ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm (para. 0047, lines 5-7, “thickness e of the razor blades 40 may range between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm, and preferably 0.075 mm;” the disclosed range for thickness includes the claimed range for thickness, and the preferred value for thickness “e” resides within the claimed range),
wherein a first separation distance (annotated fig. 5, “X”) between a curved plane coinciding with a front surface (annotated fig. 5, i.e., curvature of front surface defines curved plane) of the base portion (46) and a corresponding point (e.g., “X1” at middle of razor blade or “X2” at either side thereof, annotated fig. 5) along the cutting edge (422) ranges from 0.3 mm to 0.85 mm (deriving “X” from the values of a, b, d and e shown in fig. 5, wherein X = (a + b) - (d + e); according to para. 0046 to para. 0047, respective values for a, b, c and e are as follows: a ≈ d = 0.01 mm to 2.0 mm; b = 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm; and e = 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm; e.g., if a ≈ d = 0.01 mm; b = 1 mm; and e = 0.15 mm, then X = (0.01 + 1) - (0.01 + 0.15) = 0.85 mm; this value reads on the claimed range for X), wherein a value obtained by dividing the first separation distance (X = 0.85 mm) by the thickness (e = 0.15 mm) of the razor blade ranges from 4 to 10 (i.e., if X = 0.85 mm and e = 0.15 mm, then X/e = 0.85 mm/ 0.15mm = 5.66; the value of the ratio X/e calculated with values disclosed by Park falls within the claimed range of 4 to 10), wherein the bent portion (44) has a first inner curvature radius (Rm, annotated fig. 5) in the intermediate portion at the front surface of the razor blade (radius Rm of arc projected across a width portion of intermediate portion - “first inner curvature radius [of the bent portion] in the intermediate portion at the front surface of the razor blade” can be correspond to any arc that aligns with a portion of the bent portion near the middle of the razor), wherein the bent portion (44) has a second inner curvature radius (Re, annotated fig. 5) in the first side or the second side at the front surface of the razor blade (i.e., along edge of bent portion 44 at either end of the razor blade), and wherein the first inner curvature radius is larger than the second inner curvature radius (Rm > Re).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
555
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the thickness (e) of the razor blade ranges from 0.07 mm to 0.08 mm (Park, para. 0047, lines 5-7, “thickness e of the razor blades 40 may range between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm, and preferably 0.075 mm” [emphasis added]). Note: The preferred value for thickness (i.e., 0.075 mm) Park falls within the claimed range for thickness (t). Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the first separation distance (X) ranges from 0.37 mm to 0.86 mm (as noted above, if a = d = 0.01 mm; b = 1 mm; and e = 0.15 mm, then X = (0.01 + 1) - (0.01 + 0.15) = 0.85 mm which is in the claimed range of 0.37 mm to 0.86 mm for the first separation distance (X). Regarding claim 6, Park discloses a total height of the razor blade represented by a second separation distance (Y, annotated fig. 5) between a plane orthogonal to the base portion and a tip of the edge portion is in a range of 2.3 mm to 2.7 mm. Parks states in paragraph 0047, lines 3-5, “height c of the razor blades 40 may range between 1.5 mm and 5.0 mm, and preferably 2.5 mm.” The range for the height of the razor blade disclosed by Park includes the claimed values of 2.3 mm to 2.7 mm and therefore, anticipates the claimed range for the second separation distance (Y). Regarding claim 7, Park discloses a ratio (X/Y) of the first separation distance (X = 0.85 mm) to the second separation distance (Y = 2.5 mm) is in a range of 0.15 to 0.4. If X = 0.85 mm (as determined in the rejection for Claim 1) and Y = [preferably] 2.5 mm (as noted in the rejection for Claim 6), then the ratio of X/Y = 0.85/2.5 = 0.34; the value for this ratio falls within the claimed range of 0.15 to 0.4 and therefore anticipates the claimed range for the ratio of X/Y.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses an angle between the edge portion and the base portion is in a range of 105 degrees to 115 degrees (fig. 5 and paragraph 0048, i.e., the preferred angle of 112 degrees disclosed by Parks falls within the claimed range of 105 degrees to 115 degrees, and therefore anticipates the claimed range). Regarding claim 11, Park discloses an angle between the edge portion and the base portion ranges from 90 degrees to 120 degrees (fig. 5 and paragraph 0048, i.e., the preferred angle of 112 degrees disclosed by Parks falls within the claimed range of 90 degrees to 120 degrees, and therefore anticipates the claimed range).
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.
As best understood, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Publication 2011/0232100). Regarding claim 4, Park fails to specifically disclose the height (h1) of the base portion is in a range of 1.7 mm to 2.1 mm.
However, Park discloses the overall height of the razor blade (i.e. second separating distance, Y) may be provided within the range of has a height of 1.5 mm to 5.0 mm. In order for the razor blade to have sufficient strength to perform a shaving operation, the razor blade must have a base portion (i.e. support portion, 46) with a height that is of sufficient size to provide the necessary geometrical structure capable of distributing the pressure applied to skin when a user shaves. As one having an ordinary skill in the art is experimenting with various sizes and dimensions for the razor blade shape disclosed by Park in the range of 1.5 mm to 5.0 mm, the height of the base portion will inevitably include a height dimension (h1) of the base portion in the range of 1.7 mm to 2.1 mm. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Park such that the height (h1) of the base portion ranges from 1.7 mm to 2.1 mm since it has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art.
As best understood, claims 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Publication 2011/0232100) in view of (Davos et al (US Publication 2014/0230252), herein referred to as Davos. Regarding claim 5, Park fails to specifically include a measurement of the first separation distance (X) is less than twice a measurement of a corresponding inner curvature radius (R) of the bent portion (i.e., X < 2R).
However, Davos teaches it is known in the art of razor blades to provide a razor blade with a base portion (35), a bent portion (53) and an edge portion (39) with a cutting edge, wherein bent portion (53) has a radius (R) over 0.4mm, but preferably between 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm (paragraph 0164, lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the razor blade of Park substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Park such that the bent portion of Park’s razor blade has a radius (R) of 0.5mm, resulting in a first separation distance (X) being equal to less than twice a corresponding inner curvature radius (R) of the bent portion since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding Claim 9, the modified razor blade of Park substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejection of claim 5 includes an inner curvature radius (R) of the bent portion at each end of the razor blade is in a range of 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified razor blade of Park substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejection of claim 5 includes an inner curvature radius (R) of the bent portion at each end of the razor blade is in a range of 0.45 mm to 0.9 mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rawle (US Publication 2005/0198837) discloses details related to shaving razors. Coffin (US Publication 2006/0248726) discusses construction details of a razor blade. Van Eibergen Santhagens (US Publication 2007/0124939) discloses bent razor blades and a manufacturing process of such razor blades. In para. 0022, lines 8-10, Van Eibergen Santhagens states, “bending zones 9 are each located less than 1 mm and more preferably less than 0.7 mm from the cutting edge 7 of the same razor blade 4.” Volodin et al (US Publication 2011/0289779) discloses a razor blade with a compound bent support structure (fig. 2). Peterson (US Publication 2011/0314678) discloses a method of manufacturing bent razor blades. Wester et al (US Publication 2014/0361828) discloses a shaving razor cartridge with bent razor blades that are bowed upwards creating a curved shaving plane (fig. 4). Xu (US Publication 2016/0361828) discloses a steel material from which bent razor blades are formed. Skrobis et al (US Publication 2017/0136640) discloses a razor blade (82) with a bent portion (84).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm 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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 May 13, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights