DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6-11-26.
Applicant's election with traverse is not found persuasive because the previous Office action listed out the difference between the claim groups creating the search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Parts of Figures 1 and 2 are difficult to see and it is requested that a zoomed-in or bigger version be provided. It is very difficult to read the sub-components of the reference labels. Also, it is very difficult to see what is in each of the circles and the dimension lines in the circles are very light. For example, in the upper left circle, the Examiner had to zoom in many times to see that there is a right-angle box indicating that the line between 220 and 240 is a right angle to line 204.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 1, item STX
In Figure 2, items ST’1, CT’1, SD’1, 105’, 240’, W’, H’, L’, 150’, 205’, ST1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Figure 3A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0027] lines 4-5, the phrase “line 250 intersects with any one of the pair of coating facets 202 and 204” is unclear. First it is believed that “204” is a typo as 204 is not a facet (206 is the other facet). Second, line 250 only intersects facet 206 and does not intersect facet 204 (see Figure 1). Should the phrase be replaced with “line 250 intersects with coating facet 206”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “the coating layer comprises a pair of coating facets extending from the coating tip, the pair of coating facets comprise a pair of first coating facets…and a pair of second facets” is unclear. The “pair of coating facets” can only be 2 facets or a single pair. A pair of facets cannot be further defined as 4 facets or 2 pair of facets. The phrase “a pair of coating facets” on line 6 needs to be amended to a phrase that can be further defined as 2 pairs of facets. Lines 6-12 should be consolidated and the phrases replaced with “the coating layer comprises a pair of first coating facets and a pair of second facets”.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “pair of second facets each connecting to a second opposing end of each of the pair of first facets” is unclear. As written, each of the second pair facets connects to both of the second ends of the first facets which is not supported. The phrase should be replaced with “pair of second facets each connecting to a second opposing end of a respective one of the pair of first facets”.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase when a pair of points…intersect with each other are referred to as a pair of virtual points” is unclear. Use of the word “when” makes the limitation unclear inferring that there is a time when they do not intersect which does not appear to be the case. It is unclear what is meant by “referred to as”. It appears the “pair of points” is introduced and then renamed as “a pair of virtual points”. This renaming should be replaced with just a “virtual points disclosure”.
With regards to claim 1, the phrases “extending in directions parallel to linearly extending regions of the pair of first coating facets” and extending in directions parallel to linearly extending regions of the pair of second coating facets” are unclear and indefinite. Without specific definition of the regions, the facets are made up of an infinite number of regions that extend linearly in all directions making the limitations indefinite because the directions and regions could be different every time. Each of the coating lines has a specific definition that results in the virtual points and the wedge points. Not all regions result in the supported coating lines. Using Figure 1, there is a first/second coating line on the left side and there would be a first/second coating line and the right side of the blade. As written, the same regions define the left coating lines as the right coating lines which does not appear to be supported as the left and right coating lines are not parallel and would definitely be parallel to regions extending in different directions. These limitations must be amended to individually defines each of the coating lines and points.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the pair of first coating lines” and “the pair of second coating lines". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “a pair of points where a plurality of straight lines perpendicular to the pair of first coating lines from the pair of virtual points intersect with the pair of coating facets are referred to as a pair of wedge points” is unclear and indefinite. Since the first coating lines are indefinite, the straight line perpendicular to the coating lines are indefinite. As written, the straight lines are perpendicular to both coating lines which is not supported. The phrase “intersect with the pair of coating facets” is unclear in that it is not clear which of the first and second pairs of facets is being referenced. It is unclear what is meant by “referred to as”. It appears the “pair of points” is introduced and then renamed as “a pair of wedge points”. This renaming should be replaced with just a “wedge points disclosure”.
With regards to claim 1, the term “vertical” is unclear as it is based upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The blade is handheld and is capable of being used in an infinite number of orientations including ones where the distance would be horizontal. Terms that are true regardless of orientation need to be utilized.
With regards to claims 1 and 2, the vertical and wedge point distances are indefinite as they are dependent upon the indefinite coating lines.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrobis et al. (2013/0014396).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Skrobis et al. disclose the invention including a razor blade (10, Figs. 1-3) having a substrate (11) and a coating layer (13) formed on the substrate (Figs. 2 and 3) and having a coating tip formed at an end portion (12), the coating layer has a pair of coating facets extending from the coating tip (14 and 16, 18 and 20), the pair of coating facets have a pair of first coating facets (14 and 16) each comprising a first end forming the coating tip (Fig. 2) and a pair of second facets (18 and 20) each connecting to a second opposing end of each of the pair of first facets (Fig. 2), when a pair of points (intersection of 14’, 18’, and 17 and intersection of 16’, 20’, and 19 in Fig. 2) where the pair of first coating lines (14’, 16’) extending in directions parallel to linearly extending regions of the pair of first coating facets (Fig. 2) and the pair of second coating lines (18’, 20’) extending in directions parallel to linearly extending regions of the pair of second coating facets (Fig. 2) intersect with each other are referred to as a pair of virtual points (intersection of 14’, 18’, and 17 and intersection of 16’, 20’, and 19 in Fig. 2), a pair of points (intersection of 17 and ω and intersection of 19 and ω in Fig. 2) where a plurality of straight lines (17, 19) perpendicular to the pair of first coating lines (14’, 16’) from the pair of virtual points intersect with the pair of coating facets are referred to as a pair of wedge points (intersection of 17 and ω and intersection of 19 and ω in Fig. 2), a vertical distance between a straight line connecting the pair of wedge points and the coating tip (12 and ω in Fig. 2), and a distance between the pair of wedge points (ω in Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 1, Skrobis et al. fail to disclose the vertical distance ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 micrometers.
Skrobis et al. does disclose vertical distance 56 which appears to be aligned with the tip of the substrate 11 of 2 micrometers from tip 12 and 54 of 1 micrometer from the tip 12. While Skrobis et al. remain silent on the distance of ω from the tip 12, when looking at Figures 2 and 3 together, it appears that ω would be between distance 54 “about 1 micrometer” and distance 56 “about 2 micrometers” or, at least, on the order of these distance values. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the vertical distance any reasonable value including being within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Skrobis et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
With regards to claim 2, Skrobis et al. fail to disclose the wedge point distance ranges from 0.7 to 1.2 micrometers.
Skrobis et al. disclose that the values listed can also be interpreted as “about” values (paragraph [0035]). Meaning the wedge point distance ω of 0.65 micrometers can be considered “about” 0.65 micrometers. It is reasonable to consider “about” 0.65 micrometers to be 0.7 micrometers. To the degree this can be argued, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the wedge point distance any reasonable value including within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Skrobis et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
24 June 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights