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 (see the record from its parent case).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Therefore, the number “59891519” should be deleted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Paras. 20 recites the cutting edge as a reference “11”, but the reference “11” of figure 1 is unclear what it is pointing to (what is the different the cutting edge 11 and the sharp substrate tip 12?).
The drawings are objected to because the first coating layer thickness in claim 4 is not accurate in Figure 3 (see claim 6 “the 3rd coating layer 40 is 5-30 nanometers and claim 4 recites “a thickness of the first coating layer… is 150-300 nanometers”, but both layers in Figure 3 are shown very similar thicknesses).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6, line 1 “1wherein” seems like a typo. Examiner assumes that is –wherein--. 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 1-7 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 recites “a substrate comprising a cutting edge, a substrate tip, and plurality of coating layers laminated on the substrate” and later, the last few lines state that “a first coating layer, a second coating layer, and a 3rd coating layer” which is unclear whether the cutting edge and substrate tip include the first, second, and 3rd coating layers or not. From that, it is unclear whether, for an example, the first distance from the substrate tip to at 8 micrometers includes the coating layers of the tip at the tip or not.
Does the cutting edge have any coating layer?
Claim 2 “the third coating layer increases adhesion between the first coating layer and the second coating layer” is unclear. The specification does not discuss much about it. Look at figure 3, the layer 40 (3rd coating layer) is constant thickness. Therefore, it is unclear. Does adhesion of the layer 40 increase from the tip to the substrate body, right?
Claim 5 “wherein a value obtained by dividing a distance between the substrate tip and the blade tip by a vertical height from one surface of the cutting edge to the surface of the second coating layer is from 1.92 to 2.00” is unclear and confusing and it has many issues.
A blade tip is unclear because claim 1 recites the cutting edge that is a blade tip. Is the blade tip referring the cutting edge, right (because this tip or edge is used to cut)? “A vertical height” is unclear because this invention is a portable blade capable of achieving an infinite number of orientations including orientations where the vertical would not be the vertical would not be the vertical. It is recommended that terms be utilized that are true regardless of orientation.
“One surface of the cutting edge” is unclear since the edge does not have surface. It has an edge or line.
“value …From 1.92 to 2.00” is unclear what the “ value …distance…vertical height…1.92 to 2.00” refers to since there is no value unit of the distance and the vertical height.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 of this pending application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12076874, hereinafter the US patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all structures of Claims of this pending application are found in Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12076874 with Siozios (US 2017/0136641).
For example, regarding Claim 1, the U.S. Patent teaches all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 of this pending Application (see claim 1-2 of the U.S. Patent No. 12076874). However, the third coating layer is between the first coating layer and the second coating layer, laminated on the first coating layer; and the third coating layer contains CrB as seen in claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12076874.
Regarding Claim 2, see Claim 6 of the U.S. Patent No. 12076874.
Regarding Claim 3, see Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12076874.
Regarding Claim 4, it is well known. See the rejection below.
Regarding Claim 5, it is well known. See the rejection below with Siozios (US 2017/0136641).
Regarding Claim 6-7, see Claims 2-3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12076874.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siozios (US 2017/0136641) in view of Curry et al (US 4720918) hereinafter Curry.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Siozios shows a shaving blade (Figures 1, 9-11) comprising:
a substrate (11, Figure 1 below) comprising a cutting edge (Para. 6 “a cutting edge of a razor blade”), a substrate tip (see the tip at the reference “14”, Figure 1), and a plurality of coating layers laminated on the substrate (15, 16, 17, Figures 9-10);
wherein:
a first thickness of the substrate is defined as a thickness measured at a first distance that is 8 micrometers from the substrate tip along a central axis (see T8 in Figure 1, reproduced herein below);
a second thickness of the substrate is defined as a thickness measured at a second distance that is 16 micrometers from the substrate tip along the central axis (see T16 in Figure 1, reproduced herein below);
a third thickness of the substrate is defined as a thickness measured at a third distance that is 32 micrometers from the substrate tip along the central axis (see T32 in Figure 1, reproduced herein below);
a first difference is defined as a difference between the second thickness and the first thickness (T16-T8);
a second difference is defined as a difference between the second distance and the first distance (D16-D8=16micrometers- 8micrometers= 8micrometers);
a third difference is defined as a difference between the third thickness and the second thickness (T32-T16);
a fourth difference is defined as a difference between the third distance and the second distance (D32-D16= 16microns, Figure 1);
a first average increasing thickness is defined as a thickness measured by dividing the first difference by the second difference ((T16-T8)/8));
a second average increasing thickness is defined as a thickness measured by dividing the third difference by the fourth difference ((T32-T16)/16));
the plurality of coating layers include a first coating layer (15, Figure 9 and Para. 86 “the interlayer 15 may be made of Cr”), a second coating layer (17, Figure 9, and Para. 85, the first few lines “a polyfluorocarbon polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”), and a third coating layer (16), the plurality of coating layers contain one or more of chromium boride (CrB) (as it is written, it does not require all coating layers have the same material of one of CrB, DLC, or CrC, therefore, see Para. 85, the last few lines “the strengthening coating layer 16 could include, in addition to or in place of the aforementioned materials, Cr, Cr—Pt mixtures, Cr—C mixtures, diamond, DLC, one or more nitrides, one or more carbides, one or more oxides, one or more borides, and/or any mixture or combination thereof” which meets the limitation);
the first coating layer (15, Figure 9) is laminated on the substrate; the third coating layer (16) is between the first coating layer (15) and the second coating layer (17), laminated on the first coating layer; and the third coating layer contains CrB (see the discussion above).
However, Siozios fails to show the first average increasing thickness is greater than the second average increasing thickness (Examiner notes that both sides 12-13 at the section from T8 and T32 appear flat or linear as seen in Figure 1, as the results the first average increasing thickness is NOT greater than the second average increasing thickness).
Curry shows a razor blade (Figure 1) and both outer sides of the blade are flat or linear until a distance about 16 micrometers (Figures 2, 10), the outer sides from the distance 8-16 micrometers are more slope and curved (towards to the tip) than the outer sides from the distance 16 and 32 micrometers (Figure 10) that means the average increasing thickness at the section (8-16 micrometers) is greater than the second average increasing thickness at the section (16 and about 32 micrometers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art have modified the blade of Siozios to have the average increasing thickness greater than the second average increasing thickness, as taught by Curry, in order to obtain a device that improves the shaving as discussed in Col. 1, lines 23-24 of Curry. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Further, based on the teaching of Curry, it is an old and well understood results-effective-variable.
In the Col. 2, lines 20-31 of Curry recites that “It is clear that a reduction in the included angle of the facets would correspondingly reduce the resistance to continued penetration of the blade tip into the hair. However, if the included angle were reduced too much, the strength of the blade tip would be inadequate to withstand the resultant bending forces on the edge during the cutting process and the tip would deform plastically (or fracture in a brittle fashion, depending on the mechanical properties of the material from which it is made) and so sustain permanent damage, which would impair its subsequent cutting performance, i.e. the edge would become ‘blunt’ or ‘dull’”.
Given the reasons above, this proves that the blade thickness range is a known results-effective variable, and one of ordinary skill in the art can change that thickness of blade to affect the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified blade of Siozios shows that the third coating layer increases adhesion between the first coating layer and the second coating layer (see Siozios Figure 9, the layer 16 between layers 15, 17 and see Figure 11, the layer 16 increases from the tip towards to the substrate body 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
873
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the modified blade of Siozios shows all of the limitations as stated above including the thickness at the distance of 5 micrometer is 1.57-2.35 micrometers and the thickness at the distance of 20 micrometer is 4.62-6.74 micrometers, however, it is unclear whether the modified blade has the second distance at 16 micrometers in a range from 2.41 micrometers to 3.76 micrometers or not.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had the second thicknesses of the blade of any reasonable range including the claimed ranges (a thickness at a distance of 16 micrometers from the substrate tip, is in a range from 2.41 micrometers to 3.76 micrometers), since it has been held that where the general conditions of claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover, the claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges. This proves that the blade thickness range is a known results-effective variable, see the discussion of Curry above, and one of ordinary skill in the art can change that thickness of blade to affect the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 4, the modified blade of Siozios shows all of the limitations as stated claims 1-3 above, however, the modified blade of Siozios silently discusses that a thickness of the first coating layer is in a range from 150 nanometers to 300 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had the thicknesses of the first coating layer of any reasonable range including the claimed ranges (150 nanometers to 300 nanometers), since it has been held that where the general conditions of claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover, the claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges. This proves that the coating thickness of the first coating layer range is a known results-effective variable, (if there has a thicker coating, makes thicker blade and increases blade cost, it is possible to make the first coating layer more adhesion; and if it has thinner coating, reduces thickness of the blade and reduces blade cost and it is possible to make the blade more flexible). Also see the discussion of Curry above for other known results-effective variable, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can change that thickness of blade to affect the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified blade of Siozios shows that the second coating layer (17, Siozios’s Figure 9) includes a blade tip formed at a position corresponding to the substrate tip, and
wherein a value obtained by dividing a distance between the substrate tip and the blade tip by a vertical height from one surface of the cutting edge to the surface of the second coating layer is from 1.92 to 2.00 (see the issues above; as it is written, it is unclear what units of the distance, the vertical height and the value be, therefore, it appears Siozios’s Figure 9 shows a ratio of a distance between a tip of the substrate and a tip of the blade dividing by a vertical height between one surface of the cutting edge to the surface of the second coating layer from 1.92 to 2.00 since this blade is a portable blade capable of achieving an infinite number of orientations including orientations where the vertical height value can be resulted the ratio or value discussion above meets 1.92-2.00).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified blade of Siozios shows a thickness of the third coating layer is in a range from 5 nanometers to 30 nanometers (see strengthening coating layer 16 of Siozios and Para. 12 “2 and 15 nanometers”) and wherein the second coating layer contains polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Para. 85 of Siozios “The lubricating layer 17 is made of a polymer coating, e.g., a polyfluorocarbon polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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 on (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/4/2026