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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 should recite “wherein the soft coating is an outermost coating of the razor blade” or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 12-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication NO. 202302002062 to Ahrens et al.
In re claim 1, Ahrens teaches a razor blade comprising:
(a) a substrate (2125, Paras 0067,0135) having a cutting edge (see Annotated Figure 1, below); and
(b) a soft coating disposed on at least a portion of the substrate (Para 0067, 0068, 0135), said soft coating comprising a lubricious material and an antibacterial additive selected from the group consisting of one or more metals, one or more metal salts, and mixtures thereof, wherein:
(i) the metal is selected from the group consisting of silver, copper, zinc, cobalt, nickel, zirconium, and molybdenum (Para 0135); and,
(ii) the metal salt is selected from the group consisting of silver salts, copper salts, zinc salts, and calcium salts (Paras 0069,0072,0135).
In re claim 12, wherein the soft coating (Para 0135) is the outermost coating comprising the razor blade.
In re claim 13, wherein the lubricious material is selected from the group consisting of fluoropolymers, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyoxymethylene (acetal), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), carbon, hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, and combinations thereof (Paras 0066-0075).
Ahrens teaches a utility cutter manufactured from a plastic with antimicrobial material and a metallic particles is particularly useful for sterile environments, and food production/processing (Para 0067). Ahrens teaches there are four main types of antimicrobial materials, including silver ion, which is suitable for deployment in a range of materials and applications including coatings, textiles, polymers, plastics, and other material types. Ahrens teaches in Paras 0071-0075, which plastics and polymers are usable in combination with silver ion. It has been interpreted any known combination of plastics and/or polymers and silver ion are usable as an antimicrobial coating on a utility blade.
In re claim 14, wherein the lubricious material comprises one or more fluoropolymers selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polyperfluoroalkoxyalkanes, fluorinated ethylene propylene, polyethylene- tetrafluoroethylene, and mixtures thereof (Para 0072).
In re claim 15, wherein the lubricious material comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (Para 0072).
In re claim 16, wherein the soft coating is disposed directly on the substrate (Para 0135).
In re claim 17, wherein the intermediate layer is present and comprises a hard coating.
Note, the limitations to claim 17 are directed to the “or” clause in claim 1. The limitation to the soft coating being applied to the substrate has been examined at this time; therefore, examination of the alternative limitation is not required at this time.
In re claim 18, wherein the hard coating comprises a layer containing a chromium-containing material.
Note, the limitations to claim 18 are directed to the “or” clause in claim 1. The limitation to the soft coating being applied to the substrate has been examined at this time; therefore, examination of the alternative limitation is not required at this time.
In re claim 19, wherein the hard coating further comprises at least one interlayer disposed between the substrate and the layer containing the chromium- containing material.
Note, the limitations to claim 19 are directed to the “or” clause in claim 1. The limitation to the soft coating being applied to the substrate has been examined at this time; therefore, examination of the alternative limitation is not required at this time.
In re claim 20, wherein the at least one interlayer comprises polymeric material, niobium, chromium, platinum, titanium, silicon, tantalum, tungsten, molybdenum, carbon, boron, or any mixtures or alloys thereof.
Note, the limitations to claim 20 are directed to the “or” clause in claim 1. The limitation to the soft coating being applied to the substrate has been examined at this time; therefore, examination of the alternative limitation is not required at this time.
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahrens in view of CN11378542 to Meng.
In re claim 2, Ahrens teaches a razor blade wherein the antibacterial additive comprises a metal and a lubricious material having a weight ratio, but does not teach the weight ratio of the lubricious material to the metal is in a range of about 100:1 to about 2:1.
Meng teaches in the art of shaving a rotary shaver having an outer knife laminated with an antibacterial lubricating coating comprising antibacterial and lubricating particles. The antibacterial particles comprise at least a silver ion and the lubricating particles comprise at least one of SiO2 and polysiloxane (Pg. 3, lines 33-40). The weight ratio of the lubricious material to the metal is 1:1 to 10:1, which is within the range of about 100:1 to about 2:1 (Pg. 4, lines 1-6).
Note, it has been interpreted that silver ion is a metal and satisfies the “metal” set forth in claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the weight ratio of the lubricious material to the metal of Ahrens to be 1:1 to 10:1 as taught by Meng in order to maintain an optimal balance of antibacterial and lubricating effects (Pg. 4, lines 1-13).
In re claim 3, modified Ahrens teaches wherein the weight ratio is in a range of about 20:1 to about 3:1 (the ratio of 1:1 to 10:1 falls within the claimed range, Pg. 4, lines 1-6, Meng).
In re claim 4, modified Ahrens teaches wherein the weight ratio is in a range of about 6:1 to about 4:1 (the ratio of 1:1 to 10:1 falls within the claimed range, Pg. 4, lines 1-6, Meng).
In re claim 5, Ahrens teaches a razor blade wherein the antibacterial additive comprises a metal ion and a lubricious material having a weight ratio, but does not teach the weight ratio of the lubricious material to the metal ion comprising the metal salt is in a range of about 100:1 to about 2:1.
Meng teaches in the art of shaving a rotary shaver having an outer knife laminated with an antibacterial lubricating coating comprising antibacterial and lubricating particles. The antibacterial particles comprise at least a silver ion and the lubricating particles comprise at least one of SiO2 and polysiloxane (Pg. 3, lines 33-40). The weight ratio of the lubricious material to the metal is 1:1 to 10:1, which is within the range of about 100:1 to about 2:1 (Pg. 4, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the weight ratio of the lubricious material to the metal of Ahrens to be 1:1 to 10:1 as taught by Meng in order to maintain an optimal balance of antibacterial and lubricating effects (Pg. 4, lines 1-13).
In re claim 6, modified Ahrens teaches wherein the weight ratio is in a range of about 20:1 to about 3:1 (the ratio of 1:1 to 10:1 falls within the claimed range, Pg. 4, lines 1-6, Meng).
In re claim 7, modified Ahrens teaches wherein the weight ratio is in a range of about 6:1 to about 4:1 (the ratio of 1:1 to 10:1 falls within the claimed range, Pg. 4, lines 1-6, Meng).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahrens in view of US Patent No. 10034478 to Krasnow et al.
In re claims 8-9, Ahrens teaches wherein the antibacterial additive includes a metal salt, but does not teach the metal salt having a solubility of at least about 0.1 g/L in water at 20°C (Claim 8) and a solubility of at least about 1 g/L in water at 20°C (Claim 9).
Kransow teaches the antimicrobial effect of various metals and their salts have been known for centuries (Col. 1, lines 36-37). Kransow teaches a copper halides salt has a solubility of .02mg/100ML at 20°C (which is 0.000002 g/L; Col. 4, lines 49-51) and that non-copper salts have a range of less than 100 mg/L or more (which is 0.01 g/L or more; Col. 5, lines 21-23) or less than 15 mg/L at 25°C (which is 0.0015 g/L).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to for the solubility of the metal salts of Ahren to be at least about 1g/L at 20°C as taught by Kransow to provide efficacy that last for long periods of time, while also not altering the appearance during application (Col. 5, lines 4-10, 23-25).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahrens in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20160166738 to Tramontano et al.
In re claim 10, Ahrens teaches an antibacterial additive, but does not teach the antibacterial additive comprises silver sulfate.
Tramontano teaches a sliver-based antimicrobial agent can include a silver sulfate (Para 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Ahrens with an antibacterial additive including a silver sulfate as taught by Tramontano which is an art recognized equivalent silver-based antibacterial agent to provide a coating with a consistent elution of antimicrobial agents over a long period of time (Para 0004).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahrens in view of WO 2004092283 to Buchholz et al.
In re Claim 11, Ahrens teaches an antibacterial additive, but does not teach the antibacterial additive comprises copper sulfate.
Buchholz teaches a sliver oxide can be substituted with a copper sulfate (Pg. 8, lines 32-42).
It would have been obvious to It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Ahrens with an antibacterial additive including a copper sulfate as taught by Buchholz which is an art recognized equivalent antimicrobial to provide a coating that does not alter the properties of the fillers with respect to color, chroma, and tinting strength (Pg. 4, lines 9-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 6,723,350 teaches lubricious coatings for substrates including metals such as silver, zine, copper. US PGPUB 20240351227 teaches a nose hair trimmer having an antimicrobial coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
