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 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, “by spraying, nebulizing, dipping or immersing. The polymers may also be applied directly by melt coating, flame spraying, isostatic press (hot , warm or cold) etc.” should be corrected to “by spraying, nebulizing, dipping or immersing, melt coating, flame spraying, or isostatic press (hot, warm, or cold).” for the sake co clarity.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, is it unclear if the features “preferably between 140ºC and 180ºC” and “more preferably between 145ºC and 165ºC” are required or optional limitations. For purpose of examination, those features are considered to be optional. However, applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alter (US3071858) (and further evidenced by Yao (CN1327011A) for claim 7)
Regarding claim 1, Alter teaches a method of coating a cutting edge of the razer blades with a solid hydrocarbon polymer (column 1 lines 10-20) (a method of depositing a hydrocarbon polymer layer onto the outer layer of a substrate). Alter teaches to provide the razor blade (substrate) (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5). Alter teaches to depositing the solution or dispersion of the polymer (hydrocarbon) on the bade edge (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5) (depositing a hydrocarbon polymer layer onto the substate to create a coated substate). Alter teaches to cure the hydrocarbon polymer layer on the coated substrate (column 3 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 2, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymer cures the polymer to exhibit at least 10% crystallinity (column 3 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 7, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymers are high-density and low-density polyethylene (column 2 lines 45-60), which have the density range of 0.941-0.965g/cm3 and 0.910-0.925g/cm3 respectively, as evidenced by Yao (page 1 lines 20-25), which is inside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymer is deposted on the substrate by spraying, dipping, immersing, nebulizing etc (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5).
Regarding claim 11, Alter teaches a method of coating a cutting edge of the razer blades with a solid hydrocarbon polymer (column 1 lines 10-20) (a method of depositing a hydrocarbon polymer layer onto the outer layer of a substrate). Alter teaches to provide the razor blade (substrate) (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5). Alter teaches to depositing the solution or dispersion of the polymer (hydrocarbon) on the bade edge (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5) (depositing a hydrocarbon polymer layer onto the substate to create a coated substate). Alter teaches to cure the hydrocarbon polymer layer on the coated substrate (column 3 lines 5-15). Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymer cures the polymer to exhibit at least 10% crystallinity (column 3 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 16, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymers are high-density and low-density polyethylene (column 2 lines 45-60), which have the density range of 0.941-0.965g/cm3 and 0.910-0.925g/cm3 respectively, as evidenced by Yao (page 1 lines 20-25), which is inside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymer is deposted on the substrate by spraying, dipping, immersing, nebulizing etc (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5).
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischbein (US3638308).
Regarding claim 1, Fischbein teaches a method of apply a polymeric polyether coating to the blade edge of the razer blades (abstract) (a method of depositing a hydrocarbon polymeric layer onto the outer layer of a substrate). Fischbein teaches to provide a substrate (column 4 lines 50-75). Fischbein teaches to depositing a polyether coating onto the substrate to create a coated substrate (column 4 lines 50-75). Fischbein teaches to cure the coating (column 4 lines 50-75).
Regarding claim 3, Fischbein teaches to curing at a inert or vacuum atmosphere (non-oxidizing) at temperature of 320 to 800ºF (160-427ºC) (column 4 lines 5-40), which is insides of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Fischbein teaches the duration is about 30min (column 4 lines 5-40), which is inside of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Fischbein teaches the polymer is applied by dipping or spraying (column 4 lines 55-60).
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 4, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US3071858) as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 16 and 18 above.
Regarding claim 4, Alter teaches the curing is done for a duration of 1 minutes to over half an hour (column 3 lines 5-35), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Alter teaches the curing temperature is 300 to 320ºF (149-160ºC) (column 3 line 5-15), and the substrate is preheated before the composition is applied to the surface to provide closer control over extend of cure (column 3 lines 30-40). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the preheating temperature (to be close to the curing temperature 149-160 ºC) in the process to yield the desired control over extend of curing. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 13, Alter teaches the curing is done for a duration of 1 minutes to over half an hour (column 3 lines 5-35), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Alter teaches the curing temperature is 300 to 320ºF (149-160ºC) (column 3 line 5-15), and the substrate is preheated before the composition is applied to the surface to provide closer control over extend of cure (column 3 lines 30-40). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the preheating temperature (to be close to the curing temperature 149-160 ºC) in the process to yield the desired control over extend of curing. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US3071858) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Kirk (US3399250).
Regarding claim 3, Alter teaches the curing temperature is 300 to 320ºF (149-160ºC) in the oxidizing conditions (column 3 line 5-15), which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein the such curing resulting in cross-linking and oxidation degradation, and further oxidation results in a gradual decrease of the desirable coating properties and a coating which produces no detectable improvement in shaving characteristics when the coating is cured in oxidizing condition after it has reached the optimal properties (column 3 lines 35-50). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.Thus, Alter teaches all the limitations of this claim, except the cuing is done in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. However, Kirk teaches a film comprising polyethylene (abstract). Kirk teaches to cure the polymer in the inert atmosphere in order to minimize oxidation degradation (column 8 lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include curing of the polymer in the inert atmosphere (non-oxidizing atmosphere) as suggested by Kirk after initial curing in the oxidizing condition in the method of Alter because Kirk teaches such curing minimize oxidative degradation, which is desired by Alter.
Regarding claim 12, Alter teaches the curing temperature is 300 to 320ºF (149-160ºC) in the oxidizing conditions (column 3 line 5-15), which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein the such curing resulting in cross-linking and oxidation degradation, and further oxidation results in a gradual decrease of the desirable coating properties and a coating which produces no detectable improvement in shaving characteristics when the coating is cured in oxidizing condition after it has reached the optimal properties (column 3 lines 35-50). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.Thus, Alter teaches all the limitations of this claim, except the cuing is done in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. However, Kirk teaches a film comprising polyethylene (abstract). Kirk teaches to cure the polymer in the inert atmosphere in order to minimize oxidation degradation (column 8 lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include curing of the polymer in the inert atmosphere (non-oxidizing atmosphere) as suggested by Kirk after initial curing in the oxidizing condition in the method of Alter because Kirk teaches such curing minimize oxidative degradation, which is desired by Alter.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter (US3071858) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Yao (CN 1327011).
Regarding claims 5-6, Alter teaches all limitation of this claim, except the hydrocarbon polymer layer comprises the claimed functional groups. However, Yao teaches a functional polyethylene consisting of base resin of polyethylene (same as Alter) with functional group acrylic acid (carboxylic acid) (abstract, paragraphs 0002 and 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carboxylic acid functional group to the polyethylene polymer as suggested by Yao in the method of Alter because Yao teaches the functionalized polyethylene provides good adhesion to metals and good mechanical properties compared to polyethylene polymer coating (paragraph 0011), which is desired by Alter.
Regarding claims 14-15, Alter teaches all limitation of this claim, except the hydrocarbon polymer layer comprises the claimed functional groups. However, Yao teaches a functional polyethylene consisting of base resin of polyethylene (same as Alter) with functional group acrylic acid (carboxylic acid) (abstract, paragraphs 0002 and 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carboxylic acid functional group to the polyethylene polymer as suggested by Yao in the method of Alter because Yao teaches the functionalized polyethylene provides good adhesion to metals and good mechanical properties compared to polyethylene polymer coating (paragraph 0011), which is desired by Alter.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Alter (US3071858) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Akao (US4411945) and JP2005504621A (hereafter ‘621).
Regarding claim 8, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymer is applied to the substrate in the form of the solution or dispersion (suspension) (column 2 lines 65-70). Thus, Alter teaches all limitations of this claim, except the dispersion comprising nonionic surfactant and the claimed solvent. However, Alko teaches a low friction sheet comprising high density polyethylene film (abstract, column 1 lines 5-10). Alko teaches nonionic surfactant is incorporated in the polyethylene to provide antistatic properties (column 3 lines 5-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nonionic surfactant in the polyethylene mixture as suggested by Alko in the method of Alter because Alko teaches the nonionic surfactant provide antistatic chrematistic for the polyethylene polymer (column 3 lines 5-35).
Alter in view of Alko does not explicitly teach the solvent is water or isopropyl alcohol. However, ‘621 teaches polyolefin particles, polyethylene (abstract, paragraph 0013). ‘621 teaches water and toluene (Alter’s solvent) are functionally equivalent solvent as liquid carrier to apply polyethylene dispersion on a surface (paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute water for toluene as solvent in the method as disclosed by Alter in view of Alko.
Regarding claim 17, Alter teaches the hydrocarbon polymer is applied to the substrate in the form of the solution or dispersion (suspension) (column 2 lines 65-70). Thus, Alter teaches all limitations of this claim, except the dispersion comprising nonionic surfactant and the claimed solvent. However, Alko teaches a low friction sheet comprising high density polyethylene film (abstract, column 1 lines 5-10). Alko teaches nonionic surfactant is incorporated in the polyethylene to provide antistatic properties (column 3 lines 5-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nonionic surfactant in the polyethylene mixture as suggested by Alko in the method of Alter because Alko teaches the nonionic surfactant provide antistatic chrematistic for the polyethylene polymer (column 3 lines 5-35).
Alter in view of Alko does not explicitly teach the solvent is water or isopropyl alcohol. However, ‘621 teaches polyolefin particles, polyethylene (abstract, paragraph 0013). ‘621 teaches water and toluene (Alter’s solvent) are functionally equivalent solvent as liquid carrier to apply polyethylene dispersion on a surface (paragraph 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute water for toluene as solvent in the method as disclosed by Alter in view of Alko.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights