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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-18, and 20 are pending, of which claims 10-14 and 17 are withdrawn. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 24 March 2026.
Moreover, the feature of “a mount” as recited in claims 1, 18, and 20 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), unlike the prior recitation of “a mounting portion”.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: each of claims 1, 18, and 20 recites, “a mount”. The specification fails to provide an antecedent basis for “a mount”, and instead describes “a mounting portion”. The specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for “a mount”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,035,865 to McRae et al. in view of US Pat. No. 4,641,429 to Abatemarco and WO 2016/113553 to Bruce, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 5,129,157 to Wood.
Regarding claim 1, McRae discloses a manipulatable device including a spherical handle 30 (see Fig. 2 and col. 2, line 17 disclosing the handle 30 as ‘spherical’) to which an implement is attached (see Figs. 2 and 3, where the implement is a writing tip of the writing device 32 in Fig. 2 and a curved working head of the spoon 36 in Fig. 3), a mount extending outwardly from a surface of the spherical handle 30 in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the spherical handle 30 and coincident with a radius of the spherical handle 30 (see the annotated Figs. 2 and 3 below identifying respective mounts, which are referred to as ‘mounting portions’ in the annotated figures below; see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 of McRae disclosing that the mount extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30), the mount connecting the implement to the spherical handle 30 such that the implement is spaced apart from the spherical handle 30 (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3 below, where each implement is spaced from the handle 30 by the extent of the mount), the spherical handle 30 having a diameter between 1 ¼ inches and 2 inches (see the example of the diameter being 1 7/8 inches at col. 2, lines 49-51, and see also the potential range of diameters of 1 ½ to 2 inches at col 2, lines 51-53) and located adjacent to the implement such that a shortest distance between the implement and the spherical handle 30 is no greater than some undisclosed value (see Figs. 2 and 3 – McRae does not explicitly disclose a distance between the implement and the handle 30; the handle 30 is adjacent the implement because the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘adjacent’ includes not distant, such that ‘adjacent’ does not preclude an intervening structure such as the mount being between the handle and implement), to enable the spherical handle 30 to be held in a first configuration and in a second configuration (first, the particular manner in which the handle 30 is held is merely an intended use of the handle, and the configuration of the inventive device disclosed in the present application that allows for holding the handle in the recited manners is the handle being spherical with a diameter of 1 ¼ to 2 inches, and McRae teaches exactly this structure), the spherical handle 30 being held in a palm of a hand of a user in the first configuration (see Fig. 3, e.g.) such that finger tips of the hand are able to apply pressure to the implement (this recitation is merely an intended use recitation depending on how the user elects to hold the handle and the size of the user’s finger), wherein the spherical handle 30 is able to be held in the palm of the hand of the user (see, e.g., Fig. 3), and the spherical handle 30 being held in the second configuration between a thumb and finger tips of the user such that when held in the second configuration the manipulatable device is able to be rotated around at least two axes through relative movement of fingers and the thumb of the user (once again, McRae teaches the same shape and diameter of the spherical handle required by the claim, so that McRae’s handle is capable of being held in this configuration; claim 1 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim; see also McRae at col. 3, lines 49-54 disclosing that a user is able to grasp the handle 30 in various manners).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, McRae discloses that the mount comprises an arm (see the annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 15, McRae discloses that the at least two axes include at least two of roll, yaw and pitch, or a combination or combinations thereof (this feature is satisfied due to the spherical shape of the handle – a user may elect to roll the handle along any of three perpendicular axes; like claim 1, claim 15 is an apparatus claim rather than a method claim, and even according to Applicant’s own specification a spherical handle of a diameter of 1 ¼ to 2 inches is the structure that enables the functionality recited in claim 15, and McRae teaches this structure).
Although McRae teaches that the manipulatable device can take various forms of hand-held implements including a pen, pencil, table knife or other cutlery, toothbrush, or comb (see col. 1, lines 9-16), McRae fails to expressly disclose that the implement can be a razor. As a result, McRae fails to disclose: that the manipulatable device is a razor, that the implement is a razor head including one or more blades, that the shortest distance between the implement and the handle is no greater than ¾ inch, and that the implement includes a control face on an inside of a razor head that the user is able to apply pressure to while shaving, wherein the control face comprises a planar rear support surface, wherein the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface are arranged to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user, as required by claim 1. Similarly, McRae fails to disclose: that the rear support surface includes one or more gripping portions comprising a plurality of elongate grooves, to assist in preventing the fingertips from slipping on the rear support surface, as required by claim 3; that the rear support surface includes one or more apertures, and the apertures are configured to enable a flow of water through the razor head, to thereby assist in rinsing the razor head, as required by claim 4; that the apertures form elongate grooves on the rear support surface as required by claim 5; that the razor head is wedge-shaped in cross section, such that the planar rear support surface is angled relative to a planar cutting surface of the razor head as required by claim 6; and that the razor head includes a plurality of blades providing parallel cutting edges as required by claim 16.
Abatemarco teaches a manipulatable device that is a razor (see the Abstract and Fig. 1; note that per col. 6, lines 31-38 the manipulatable device includes the illustrated cartridge being attached to a handle), that an implement of the manipulatable device is a razor head including one or more blades 22 and 40 (see Fig. 1), that the razor head includes a control face on an inside of the razor head that a user is able to apply pressure to while shaving (see the annotated Fig. 3 below, where the user is able to apply pressure to the control face because the control face is an exposed, exterior face of the razor head; note also that slots 75 and 76 shown in Fig. 1 are uncovered to enable flushing out of debris per col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 4), and that the control face comprises a planar rear support surface (a downward facing surface of base member 10 relative to Fig. 1; this surface is shown as being planar in the cross-section of Fig. 3) [claim 1]. Further, Abatemarco teaches that the rear support surface includes one or more gripping portions comprising a plurality of elongate grooves (see grooves 75 and 76 in Fig. 1; see also col. 4, lines 61-64) to assist in preventing the fingertips from slipping on the rear support surface (the grooves 75 and 76 are able to perform this function by providing a texture on the rear support surface – e.g., a user’s fingers have additional surface area to engage by contact with edges of the grooves 75 and 76 compared to if the rear support surface did not include the apertures; moreover, the apertures of Abatemarco are able to perform this function to the same extent as the grooves disclosed in the present application; merely because the Applicant recognizes a slip prevention function of the grooves does not mean that the grooves disclosed in the present application are any different structurally from those of Abatemarco) [claim 3]; where the rear support surface includes one or more apertures 75 and 76, and the apertures 75 and 76 are configured to enable a flow of water through the razor head, to thereby assist in rinsing the razor head (see the flow path of water in Fig. 3, and see also col. 4, lines 61-64) [claim 4]; the apertures 75 and 76 form elongate grooves on the rear support surface (see Figs. 1 and 3) [claim 5]; that the razor head is wedge-shaped in cross section (see Fig. 3, where the razor head increases in thickness toward in a direction from a front of the head at guard 17 toward a rear of the head), such that the planar rear support surface is angled relative to a planar cutting surface of the razor head (see Fig. 3, where the planar surface support surface is a bottom surface and the planar cutting surface is an upper surface; note the angle between these two surfaces evident in Fig. 3) [claim 6]; and that the razor head includes a plurality of blades 22 and 40 providing parallel cutting edges (see Figs. 1 and 3) [claim 16]. Providing an implement the form of a razor head as taught by Abatemarco is advantageous because a razor head is able to perform a shaving operation. Furthermore, the particular razor head of Abatemarco offers several advantages including that the cartridge facilitates cleaning without requiring any moving parts and without disassembly (see col. 2, lines 30-41), and that by including two blades in the cartridge shaving is more efficient than a single blade razor since fewer passes are required.
PNG
media_image2.png
512
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the implement of McRae in the form of a razor head as taught by Abatemarco, where the razor head is attached to the spherical handle by a mount in the manner of the implements already disclosed by McRae. This modification is advantageous because McRae seeks to provide a user with a variety of different implements attached to its spherical handle by a respective mount so that users with dexterity shortcomings are nonetheless able to grip and manipulate a variety of types of implements (see McRae at col. 1, lines 7-19 and at col. 2, lines 32-35), and this modification provides the spherical handle of McRae with a razor head so that a user is able to perform a shaving operation. Thus, this modification is advantageous to facilitate a user with dexterity shortcomings to perform a shaving operation, and expanding on the options for implements already offered by McRae. Furthermore, this modification is advantageous because the particular razor head of Abatemarco is easily cleaned without moving any parts and without disassembly, such that a user with dexterity shortcomings is able to clean the razor head. This modification is further advantageous because Abatemarco’s cartridge offers more efficient shaving than a cartridge with a single blade. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, is it already known in the art to attach a razor head to a spherical handle via a mount (see Wood at Figs. 1-5), so the modification of McRae in view of Abatemarco as explained above is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and achieves predictable results.
Still, McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, fails to disclose that the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no greater than ¾ inch, and wherein the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface are arranged to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user as required by claim 1.
Bruce teaches a razor including a handle 12, a mount 14, and a head 24 (see Fig. 1A), where the head 24 has a rear support surface (see Fig. 3C showing a user’s fingers applying pressure to the rear support surface of the head 24). The mount 14 connects the handle 12 to the head 24 (see Figs. 1A, 3B, and 3C), and the mount 14 is sufficiently short that, while the handle 12 is held in the palm of the user, the head 24 is positioned to receive fingers of the user (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 4 at lines 2-4 and at lines 20-22). Bruce also teaches that the handle 12, the mount 14, and the planar rear support surface of the head 24 are arranged to allow placement of finger tips on a control face at an inside of the head 24 to apply pressure directly to the razor head 24 while the handle 12 is held in the palm of the hand of the user (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 4 at lines 2-4 and at lines 20-22; see also page 7 at lines 15-17, page 8 at lines 1-2, and page 11 at lines 16-25). Bruce teaches that configuring the razor so that a user is able to apply pressure with the user’s fingers to the control surface on the inside of the razor head is advantageous in order to allow a user to apply more pressure to the head to improve shave closeness and allow a user to have greater control over the razor head while shaving, improving shaving accuracy (see page 11, lines 20-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface of the razor of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face on the inside of the razor head so that a user is able to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user in view of the teachings of Bruce. This modification is advantageous because arranging the razor so that the user can apply fingers directly to the control face on the inside of the razor head while the handle is held in the user’s palm allows the user to apply more pressure to the razor head in order to achieve a closer shave, and also allows a user to have greater control over the razor head while shaving, thus improving shaving accuracy. In carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a shortest distance between the razor head and the handle to be no greater than ¾ inch in view of the teachings of Bruce. Bruce teaches that the mount must be sufficiently short so that, while the handle of the razor rests in the user’s palms, the user’s fingers are able to apply pressure directly to the inside face of the razor head (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 11, lines 16-24). Since Bruce teaches that the mount is sized to position the razor head within reach of the user’s fingers when the handle is received in the user’s palm, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a size of the mount to achieve this function, inclusive of a size of the mount such that the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no greater than ¾ inch, because discovering an optimum size of the mount would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the user’s fingers are able to reach the razor head while the user holds the handle in the user’s palm. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s), since sizing components of a razor handle for ergonomic purposes is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (indeed, Bruce at Figs. 3B and 3C discloses a mount that is sufficiently small to allow the user to press directly against the inside control face of the razor head). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, selecting the geometry of a razor, including a length of a mount, that allows for holding the razor in a particular configuration) involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, selecting the size of the mount such that a shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no more than ¾ inch is further obvious because this medication is merely a change in the size of the mount, and 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). This is especially true in the present case, where Bruce provides a motivation for keeping the mount short to allow the user’s fingers to apply pressure directly to the razor head. A final reason why selecting the size of the mount such that a shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no more than ¾ inch is obvious is that different users have different sized hands. Market forces provide a motivation for manufacturers to accommodate the preferences of different groups of users, such as producing small handles for users with small hands. Therefore, in order to obtain market share of users with small hands, a manufacturer is motivated to offer a small sized version of the razor handle in which the shortest distance between the razor head and the spherical handle of McRae, as modified, is no greater than ¾ inch in order to allow users even with particularly small hands to hold the razor in the manner of Bruce.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,035,865 to McRae et al. in view of US Pat. No. 5,129,157 to Wood and WO 2016/113553 to Bruce.
Regarding claim 18, McRae discloses a manipulatable device handle assembly (including handle 30) to which an implement is configured to be attached (see Figs. 2 and 3, where the implement is a writing tip of the writing device 32 in Fig. 2 and a curved working head of the spoon 36 in Fig. 3), the handle assembly including a spherical handle 30 (see Fig. 2 and col. 2, line 17 disclosing the handle 30 as ‘spherical’), the spherical handle 30 having a mount extending outwardly therefrom in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the spherical handle 30 and coincident with a radius of the spherical handle (see the annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above identifying respective mounts as ‘mounting portions’; see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 of McRae disclosing that the mount extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30), the mount configured to connect the implement to the spherical handle 30 and extending from the spherical handle 30 by some undisclosed distance (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above), the spherical handle 30 having a diameter between 1 ¼ inches and 2 inches (see the example of the diameter being 1 7/8 inches at col. 2, lines 49-51, and see also the potential range of diameters of 1 ½ to 2 inches at col 2, lines 51-53) to enable the spherical handle 30 to be held in a first configuration and in a second configuration (first, the particular manner in which the handle 30 is held is merely an intended use of the handle, and the configuration of the inventive device disclosed in the present application that allows for holding the handle in the recited manners is the handle being spherical with a diameter of 1 ¼ to 2 inches, and McRae teaches exactly this structure), the spherical handle 30 being held in a palm of a hand of a user in the first configuration such that finger tips of the hand are able to apply pressure to a control face on an inside of the implement (see the manner in which the user is holding the handle 30 in Fig. 4 – the user’s index finger is able to apply pressure to a control face an inside of the implement 38, where the inside of the implement is an upward facing spine of the implement 38 in the embodiment of Fig. 4; this feature is further satisfied upon the modifications of McRae below), and the spherical handle 30 being held in the second configuration between a thumb and finger tips of a user such that when held in the second configuration the handle assembly is able to be rotated around at least two axes through relative movement of fingers and the thumb of the user (once again, McRae teaches the exact same structure of the spherical handle required by the claim, so that McRae’s handle is capable of being held in this configuration; claim 18 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim; see also McRae at col. 3, lines 49-54 disclosing that a user is able to grasp the handle 30 in various manners).
McRae fails to disclose that the handle assembly is a razor handle assembly, that the implement is a razor head, that the mount extends from the spherical handle by no more than ¾ inch, and that the user in the first configuration is able to apply pressure to a control face on an inside of a razor head while shaving, wherein the control face comprises a planar rear support surface, wherein the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface are arranged to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user, as required by claim 18.
Wood teaches a handle assembly 14 and 18 (see Figs. 1-5) that is a razor handle assembly (due to a mount 14 of the handle assembly 14 and 18 receiving a razor head 12), where an implement is a razor head 12 (see Figs. 1-5 and the Title). A user in a first configuration is able to apply pressure to a control face on an inside of the razor head 12 while shaving (see Fig. 2 – if the user extended the user’s fingers, the user’s fingers would be able to apply pressure to a control face on an inside of the razor head 12; see also col. 1, lines 16-22 providing motivation for the user to be able to position fingers closely to the implement; finally, this feature is satisfied upon the modifications motivated by Bruce as discussed below). Although this feature is not part of the claimed structure (i.e., claim 18 is only directed to a razor handle assembly, where the razor head is an unclaimed structure with which the claimed razor handle assembly is usable), Wood also teaches that the control face comprises a planar rear support surface (see Figs. 1 and 4, where the razor head 12 has a planar rear surface) that is adapted to allow placement of the finger tips thereon to apply pressure directly to the razor head (this feature is satisfied because the rear support surface is exposed and sufficiently wide to receive the user’s finger tips).
Still, McRae, as modified by Wood, fails to disclose that the mount extends from spherical handle by no more than ¾ inch as required by claim 18. Also, to the extent that McRae, as modified by Wood, fails to disclose that the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface are arranged to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user as required by claim 18, this feature is also addressed.
Bruce teaches a razor including a handle 12, a mount 14, and a head 24 (see Fig. 1A), where the head 24 has a rear support surface (see Fig. 3C showing a user’s fingers applying pressure to the rear support surface of the head 24). The mount 14 connects the handle 12 to the head 24 (see Figs. 1A, 3B, and 3C), and the mount 14 is sufficiently short that, while the handle 12 is held in the palm of the user, the head 24 is positioned to receive fingers of the user (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 4 at lines 2-4 and at lines 20-22). Bruce also teaches that the handle 12, the mount 14, and the planar rear support surface of the head 24 are arranged to allow placement of finger tips on a control face at an inside of the head 24 to apply pressure directly to the razor head 24 while the handle 12 is held in the palm of the hand of the user (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 4 at lines 2-4 and at lines 20-22; see also page 7 at lines 15-17, page 8 at lines 1-2, and page 11 at lines 16-25). Bruce teaches that configuring the razor so that a user is able to apply pressure with the user’s fingers to the control surface on the inside of the razor head is advantageous in order to allow a user to apply more pressure to the head to improve shave closeness and allow a user to have greater control over the razor head while shaving, improving shaving accuracy (see page 11, lines 20-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface of the razor of McRae, as modified by Wood, to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face on the inside of the razor head so that a user is able to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user in view of the teachings of Bruce. This modification is advantageous because arranging the razor so that the user can apply fingers directly to the control face on the inside of the razor head while the handle is held in the user’s palm allows the user to apply more pressure to the razor head in order to achieve a closer shave, and also allows a user to have greater control over the razor head while shaving, thus improving shaving accuracy. In carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a length of the mount so that the mount extends from the spherical handle by no more than ¾ inch in view of the teachings of Bruce. Bruce teaches that the mount must be sufficiently short so that, while the handle of the razor rests in the user’s palms, the user’s fingers are able to apply pressure directly to the inside face of the razor head (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 11, lines 16-24). Since Bruce teaches that the mount is sized to position the razor head within reach of the user’s fingers when the handle is received in the user’s palm, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a size of the mount to achieve this function, inclusive of a size of the mount such that the mount extends from the spherical handle by no more than ¾ inch, because discovering an optimum size of the mount would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the user’s fingers are able to reach the razor head while the user holds the handle in the user’s palm. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s), since sizing components of a razor handle for ergonomic purposes is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (indeed, Bruce at Figs. 3B and 3C discloses a mount that is sufficiently small to allow the user to press directly against the inside control face of the razor head). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, selecting the geometry of a razor, including a length of a mount, that allows for holding the razor in a particular configuration) involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, selecting the size of the mount such that the mount extends from the handle by no more than ¾ inch is further obvious because this medication is merely a change in the size of the mount, and 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). This is especially true in the present case, where Bruce provides a motivation for keeping the mount short to allow the user’s fingers to apply pressure directly to the razor head. A final reason why selecting the size of the mount is obvious is that different users have different sized hands. Market forces provide a motivation for manufacturers to accommodate the preferences of different groups of users, such as producing small handles for users with small hands. Therefore, in order to obtain market share of users with small hands, a manufacturer is motivated to offer a small sized version of the razor handle in which the mount extends from the handle of McRae, as modified, by a distance no greater than ¾ inch in order to allow users even with particularly small hands to hold the razor in the manner of Bruce.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,035,865 to McRae et al. in view of US Pat. No. 4,641,429 to Abatemarco and WO 2016/113553 to Bruce, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 5,129,157 to Wood.
Regarding claim 20, McRae teaches a manipulatable device including a spherical handle 30 (see Fig. 2 and col. 2, line 17 disclosing the handle 30 as ‘spherical’) to which an implement is attached (see Figs. 2 and 3, where the implement is a writing tip of the writing device 32 in Fig. 2 and a curved working head of the spoon 36 in Fig. 3), a mount extending outwardly from the spherical handle 30 in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the spherical handle 30 and coincident with a radius of the spherical handle 30 (see the annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above identifying respective mounts as ‘mounting portions’; see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 disclosing that the mount extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30), the mount connecting the implement to the spherical handle 30 such that the implement is spaced apart from the spherical handle 30 (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above, where each implement is spaced from the handle 30 by the extent of the mount), the spherical handle 30 having a diameter between 1 ¼ inches and 2 inches (see the example of the diameter being 1 7/8 inches at col. 2, lines 49-51, and see also the potential range of diameters of 1 ½ to 2 inches at col 2, lines 51-53) and located adjacent to the implement when attached such that a shortest distance between the implement and the spherical handle 30 is no greater than some undisclosed value (see Figs. 2 and 3 – each implement is near to the spherical handle 30 relative to a size of the illustrated hand; the handle 30 is adjacent the implement because the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘adjacent’ includes not distant, such that ‘adjacent’ does not preclude an intervening structure such as the mount being between the handle and implement), the spherical handle 30 holdable in a palm of a hand of a user (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Although McRae teaches that the manipulatable device can take various forms of hand-held implements including a pen, pencil, table knife or other cutlery, toothbrush, or comb (see col. 1, lines 9-16), McRae fails to expressly disclose that the implement can be a razor. Thus, McRae fails to disclose that the manipulatable device is a razor, that the implement is a razor head including one or more blades, that a shortest distance between the razor head and the spherical handle is no greater than ¾ inch, and the razor including a planar rear support surface, wherein the spherical handle, the mount, and the rear support surface are arranged to allow finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user as required by claim 20.
Abatemarco teaches a manipulatable device that is a razor (see the Abstract and Fig. 1; note that per col. 6, lines 31-38 the manipulatable device includes the razor head illustrated in Abatemarco being attached to a handle), that an implement of the manipulatable device is a razor head including one or more blades 22 and 40 (see Fig. 1), and the razor includes a planar rear support surface (see Figs. 1 and 3, where the ‘rear support surface’ is a bottom surface of base member 10 relative to Fig. 3), the rear support surface adapted to allow finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head (this feature is satisfied due to the formation of apertures 75 and 76 on the rear support surface, noting that apertures 75 and 76 of Abatemarco correspond to the ‘control portions 2120’ disclosed in the present application as a structure that causes the rear support surface of the present application to be “adapted” to allow finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head; to the extent that this “adapted” to requirement also necessitates the razor head being within a particular distance from the spherical handle, see the further discussion of the teachings of Stiles below). Providing an implement the form of a razor head as taught by Abatemarco is advantageous because a razor head is able to perform a shaving operation. Furthermore, the particular razor head of Abatemarco offers several advantages including that the cartridge facilitates cleaning without requiring any moving parts and without disassembly (see col. 2, lines 30-41), and that by including two blades in the cartridge shaving is more efficient than a single blade razor since fewer shaving passes are required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the implement of McRae in the form of a razor head as taught by Abatemarco, where the razor head is attached to the spherical handle by a mount in the manner of the implements already disclosed by McRae. This modification is advantageous because McRae seeks to provide a user with a variety of different implements attached to its spherical handle by a mount so that users with dexterity shortcomings are nonetheless able to grip and manipulate a variety of types of implements (see McRae at col. 1, lines 7-19 and at col. 2, lines 32-35), and this modification provides the spherical handle of McRae with a razor head so that a user is able to perform a shaving operation. Thus, this modification is advantageous to facilitate a user with dexterity shortcomings to perform a shaving operation, and expanding on the options for implements already offered by McRae. Furthermore, this modification is advantageous because the particular razor head of Abatemarco is easily cleaned without moving any parts and without disassembly, such that a user with dexterity shortcomings is able to clean the razor head. This modification is further advantageous because Abatemarco’s cartridge offers more efficient shaving than a cartridge with a single blade. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, it is already known in the art to attach a razor head to a spherical handle via a mounting portion (see Wood at Figs. 1-5), so the modification of McRae in view of Abatemarco as explained above is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and achieves predictable results.
Still, McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, fails to disclose that the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no greater than ¾ inch, and wherein the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface are arranged to allow finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user as required by claim 20.
Bruce teaches a razor including a handle 12, a mount 14, and a head 24 (see Fig. 1A), where the head 24 has a rear support surface (see Fig. 3C showing a user’s fingers applying pressure to the rear support surface of the head 24). The mount 14 connects the handle 12 to the head 24 (see Figs. 1A, 3B, and 3C), and the mount 14 is sufficiently short that, while the handle 12 is held in the palm of the user, the head 24 is positioned to receive fingers of the user (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 4 at lines 2-4 and at lines 20-22). Bruce also teaches that the handle 12, the mount 14, and the planar rear support surface of the head 24 are arranged to allow placement of finger tips on a control face at an inside of the head 24 to apply pressure directly to the razor head 24 while the handle 12 is held in the palm of the hand of the user (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 4 at lines 2-4 and at lines 20-22; see also page 7 at lines 15-17, page 8 at lines 1-2, and page 11 at lines 16-25). Bruce teaches that configuring the razor so that a user is able to apply pressure with the user’s fingers to the control surface on the inside of the razor head is advantageous in order to allow a user to apply more pressure to the head to improve shave closeness and allow a user to have greater control over the razor head while shaving, improving shaving accuracy (see page 11, lines 20-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the spherical handle, the mount, and the planar rear support surface of the razor of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to allow placement of the finger tips on the control face on the inside of the razor head so that a user is able to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm of the hand of the user in view of the teachings of Bruce. This modification is advantageous because arranging the razor so that the user can apply fingers directly to the control face on the inside of the razor head while the handle is held in the user’s palm allows the user to apply more pressure to the razor head in order to achieve a closer shave, and also allows a user to have greater control over the razor head while shaving, thus improving shaving accuracy. In carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a shortest distance between the razor head and the handle to be no greater than ¾ inch in view of the teachings of Bruce. Bruce teaches that the mount must be sufficiently short so that, while the handle of the razor rests in the user’s palms, the user’s fingers are able to apply pressure directly to the inside face of the razor head (see Figs. 3B and 3C; see also page 11, lines 16-24). Since Bruce teaches that the mount is sized to position the razor head within reach of the user’s fingers when the handle is received in the user’s palm, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a size of the mount to achieve this function, inclusive of a size of the mount such that the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no greater than ¾ inch, because discovering an optimum size of the mount would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the user’s fingers are able to reach the razor head while the user holds the handle in the user’s palm. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s), since sizing components of a razor handle for ergonomic purposes is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (indeed, Bruce at Figs. 3B and 3C discloses a mount that is sufficiently small to allow the user to press directly against the inside control face of the razor head). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, selecting the geometry of a razor, including a length of a mount, that allows for holding the razor in a particular configuration) involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, selecting the size of the mount such that a shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no more than ¾ inch is further obvious because this medication is merely a change in the size of the mount, and 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). This is especially true in the present case, where Bruce provides a motivation for keeping the mount short to allow the user’s fingers to apply pressure directly to the razor head. A final reason why selecting the size of the mount such that a shortest distance between the razor head and the handle is no more than ¾ inch is obvious is that different users have different sized hands. Market forces provide a motivation for manufacturers to accommodate the preferences of different groups of users, such as producing small handles for users with small hands. Therefore, in order to obtain market share of users with small hands, a manufacturer is motivated to offer a small sized version of the razor handle in which the shortest distance between the razor head and the spherical handle of McRae, as modified, is no greater than ¾ inch in order to allow users even with particularly small hands to hold the razor in the manner of Bruce.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 August 2026 have been fully considered they are moot in view of the rejections above, which rely on Bruce for its teachings related to configuring a mount so that a user is able to apply finger tips directly to an inside control face of a razor head while the user holds a handle in the user’s palm.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
