DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 remain pending in the application. Claim 6 was cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/28/2026 was filed after the filing date of the application on 11/14/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 17, “1.5 to 3” should be “1.5 to 3 micrometer” in light of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrobis (US 20130014396 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Skrobis teaches a razor blade comprising:
a substrate (11) comprising a substrate tip formed on an end portion thereof (tip of 11, see Figure 2); and
a coating layer (30) formed on the substrate and comprising a coating tip (12, see Figure 2) formed on an end portion thereof (see Figure 2),
wherein: the substrate comprises a pair of substrate facets extending from the substrate tip (facets of 11, see Figure 2),
the coating layer comprises a pair of coating facets (14 and 16) extending from the coating tip (see annotated Figure 2),
when a straight line passing through the coating tip and the substrate tip is referred to as a reference line, a point where a horizontal line that is perpendicular to the reference line and passes through a point X micrometers away from the substrate tip along the reference line intersects with any one of the pair of substrate facets is defined as SDx (see annotated Figure 2),
a thickness of the coating layer at the point SDx is defined as a thickness measured from the point SDx to one of the parir of coating facets in a direction perpendicular to a straight line tangent to the substrate at the point SDx (see annotated Figure 2), and
a ratio of a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip by a thickness of the coating layer at a point SD ranges from 1.5 to 3 (thickness of 30, 0.8 to 1.5 micro meter, abstract),
when a region overlapping the razor blade among regions that are spaced a unknown micrometers or less from a straight line passing through the coating tip and parallel to the horizontal line is referred to as a tip region (at 58, 4 micrometer, see paragraph 0029), an area ratio of the coating layer to a total area of the razor blade in the tip region ranges from unknown percentage, and
a total cross-sectional area of the razor blade between the straight line connecting the pair of wedge points and the coating tip ranges from an unknown µm², and a proportion of the coating layer within the total cross-sectional area is unknown percentage.
Skrobis fails to teach a region overlapping the razor blade among regions that are spaced 2 micrometers or less from a straight line passing through the coating tip and parallel to the horizontal line is referred to as a tip region, an area ratio of the coating layer to a total area of the razor blade in the tip region ranges from 65% to 85%, a total cross-sectional area of the razor blade between the straight line connecting the pair of wedge points and the coating tip ranges from 0.2 µm² to 0.5 µm², and a proportion of the coating layer within the total cross-sectional area is 85% or more.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific ranges of a region overlapping the razor blade among regions that are spaced 2 micrometers or less from a straight line passing through the coating tip and parallel to the horizontal line is referred to as a tip region, an area ratio of the coating layer to a total area of the razor blade in the tip region ranges from 65% to 85%, a total cross-sectional area of the razor blade between the straight line connecting the pair of wedge points and the coating tip ranges from 0.2 µm² to 0.5 µm², and a proportion of the coating layer within the total cross-sectional area is 85% or more, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Skrobis’ coating layer to have the specific thickness set forth in the claim, in order to create the desired shape blade tip.
PNG
media_image1.png
995
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Skrobis further teaches a distance between the substrate tip and the coating tip ranges from 0.15 micrometers to 1.2 micrometers (0.8 to 1.5 micro meter, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, modified Skrobis further teaches the coating layer comprises a pair of coating facets (14 and 16) extending from the coating a point where the horizontal line intersects with any one of the pair of coating facets is defined as CDx (see annotated Figure 2), and a straight line tangent to the coating layer at a point CD is substantially parallel to a straight line tangent to the substrate at the point SD1 (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Skrobis further teaches a thickness of the coating layer at the point SD1 is a value.
Modified Skrobis fails to teach ranges from 50 to 500 nanometers.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific ranges from 50 to 500 nanometers, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Skrobis’ coating layer to have the specific thickness set forth in the claim, in order to create the desired shape blade tip.
Regarding claim 5, modified Skrobis further teaches the coating layer comprises a pair of coating facets extending from the coating the pair of coating facets comprise a pair of first coating facets (14 and 16), one end of which forms the coating tip, and an angle (alpha) formed by a pair of first coating lines extending in directions parallel to linearly extending regions of the pair of first coating facets ranges from 60 degrees to 90 degrees (alpha 90-135 degrees, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 7, modified Skrobis further teaches the coating layer comprises a pair of coating facets extending from the coating the pair of coating facets comprise: a pair of first coating facets (14 and 16) each having one end forming the coating tip 12); and a pair of second coating (18 and 20) facets each connected to the other end of each of the pair of first coating facets, and when the reference line is used as a horizontal axis (See Figure 2), an average gradient of the pair of first coating facets is greater than an average gradient of the pair of second coating facets (See Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Skrobis further teaches an angle formed by a first coating line extending in a direction parallel to a region where the first coating facet extends linearly and a second coating line extending in a direction parallel to a region where the second coating facet extends linearly each other ranges from 18 degrees to 25 degrees (beta, 5-30 degrees, paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 9-13, modified Skrobis further teaches a thickness of the razor blade, measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line at a point a first value micrometers away from the coating tip along the reference line, a second value micrometers (see Figure 2)
Modified Skrobis fails to teach a thickness of the razor blade, measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line at a point 0.05 micrometers away from the coating tip along the reference line, ranges from 0.08 micrometers to 0.099 micrometers (as required by claim 9), a thickness of the razor blade, measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line at a point 0.5 micrometers away from the coating tip along the reference line, ranges from 0.475 micrometers to 0.716 micrometers (as required by claim 10), a thickness of the razor blade, measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line at a point 1 micrometers away from the coating tip along the reference line, ranges from 0.65 micrometers to 1.3 micrometers (as required by claim 11), a thickness of the razor blade, measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line at a point 2 micrometers away from the coating tip along the reference line, ranges from 0.95 micrometers to 1.67 micrometers (as required by claim 12), a thickness of the substrate, measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line at a point 4 micrometers away from the substrate tip along the reference line, ranges from 1 micrometers to 1.6 micrometers (as required by claim 13).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific thickness measured at specific point away from the substrate tip along the reference line, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Skrobis’ coating layer to have the specific thickness set forth in the claim, in order to create the desired shape blade tip.
Regarding claim 14, modified Skrobis further teaches an angle formed by a pair of substrate lines extending in directions parallel to linearly extending regions of the pair of substrate facets at a value (see Figure 2)
Modified Skrobis fails to teach ranges from 15 degrees to 30 degrees.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle ranges from 15 degrees to 30 degrees, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Skrobis’ blade to have the specific angle set forth in the claim, in order to create the desired shape blade tip.
Regarding claim 15, modified Skrobis further teaches the coating layer comprises at least one of CrxCyBz (x, y, and Z are natural numbers equal to or greater than 1), CrmB (m and n are natural numbers equal to or greater than 1), CrC, or diamond-like carbon (DLC) (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 16, modified Skrobis further teaches the substrate is not present within 0.5 micrometers from the coating tip along the reference line (at 52, see Figure 3 and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 17, modified Skrobis further teaches a horizontal line passing through the substrate tip intersects the coating layer only within regions corresponding to the second coating facets (line at w, see annotated Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the value and percentage added in claim 1 is critical. The examiner disagrees and notes that there appear to be not enough information to deed that that the range claimed is critical (In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range) MPEP 2144.05 I.), therefore the claim range is treated as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/07/2026
Prosecution Insights