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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6-17-26.
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.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract utilizes the legal phraseology “comprises” and is in the form of a claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 8, the phrase “to one of more stabilized blade” should be replaced with “to the one or more stabilized blade”. As written, the stabilized support elements and the previously disclosed support elements are different elements because the stabilized elements do not reference back to the original disclosure which is not the case. This change makes it clear the elements are the same and are just stabilized. It is also noted that this proposal does not take into account the 112 rejections below. The changes required below must still be made in this phrase.
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 and 11 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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “one or more stabilized blade support elements” is unclear. Later in the claim discloses a first and second support element. With a first and second support element positively claimed, it is unclear how there can ever be a “one support element” option. The phrase “one or more” should be deleted and the plural of the structures utilized (blades, elements).
With regards to claim 1 line 12, the phrase “can be controlled” is unclear. The word “can” makes it unclear if this step is positively claimed or not.
With regards to claim 1, the phrases “a first stabilized blade support element” and “a second stabilized blade support element” are unclear in that they do not reference back to the original support elements limitation and are therefore in addition to the earlier discloses support element limitation. The phrases should be replaced with “a first one of the stabilized blade support elements” and “a second one of the stabilized blade support elements”.
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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ntavos et al. (9,440,282) in view of Grafton-Reed et al. (2004/0245227).
It is noted that Applicant’s “continuously feeding” can be interpreted as feeding in an intermittent manner (paragraph [0061] of the specification).
With regards to claim 1, Ntavos et al. disclose the invention including a method for manufacturing a razor cartridge component (title) comprising continuously feeding (station 3, column 5 lines 13-15) an elongate band of material (34), separating (station 10) blade support elements from the elongated band (column 4 lines 6-8 and column 7 lines 43-45), stabilizing the separated blade support elements in a stationary position (The movement of the support element is “stepwise” (column 5 lines 13-15). A “stepwise” movement includes a period of time during which the support element is stationary so that different operations can be completed and then “stepwise” transferred to the next station. Prior to the blade being provided/put onto the support element, the support element is stopped at station 12 so that the support element is in a stationary stabilized position to receive the blade (column 8 lines 48-67). If the support element 140was not in a stable or stabilized stationary position, the proper placement of the blade onto the support element and/or the proper location of the weld may not be achieved.), providing a razor blade (station 12), providing razor blades (column 4 lines 9-10), and laser welding the blades to the stabilized blade support elements (station 13, 72, column 9 lines 1-7).
With regards to claim 11, Ntavos et al. disclose the invention including the separating step is performed prior to the stabilizing step (station 10 is prior to the support element stopping at station 12), and the stabilizing step is performed prior to the to the laser welding step (the support element is stopped in a stabilized manner at station 12 prior to station 13).
However, with regards to claim 1, Ntavos et al. fail to disclose the laser welding includes scanning a laser beam over the elements using galvo scan mirrors to steer the laser beam, movement of the laser beam is controlled by a controller, and the laser beam can be controlled to weld all weld spots of a first support element in a first period of time and weld all weld spots of a second support element in a second subsequent period of time.
Grafton-Reed et al. teach it is known in the art of laser spot welding to incorporate laser welding includes scanning a laser beam (907, paragraph [0085]) over the elements using galvo scan mirrors to steer the laser beam (935, 920, 940, 925), movement of the laser beam is controlled by a controller (500, 512), and the laser beam can be controlled to weld all weld spots of a first support element in a first period of time and weld all weld spots of a second support element in a second subsequent period of time (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0067]-[0068]). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any known version of laser welding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Ntavos et al. with the specific laser welding, as taught by Grafton-Reed et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
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 Monday-Friday: 7:30 am-3:30 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, Adam J Eiseman can be reached on (571)270-3818. 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.
16 July 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights