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
Per the Request for Continued Examination filed 4 March 2026, the Amendment filed 5 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-18, and 20 are pending, of which claims 10-14 and 17 are withdrawn (see the Rejoinder section below regarding claims 7-9 no longer being withdrawn). Applicant's amendments have overcome the objection to the specification previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 4 September 2025.
Moreover, in view of claim 3 having been amended to require that the one or more gripping portions comprising “a plurality of elongae [sic] grooves”, the recitation of one or more gripping portions in claim 3 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The plurality of elongate grooves are sufficient structure to perform the function of assisting in preventing the finger tips from slipping.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Rejoinder
The examiner has determined that claims 7-9 are directed to the same inventive concept as claim 1. Therefore, the restriction requirement with respect to claims 7-9 has been withdrawn, and the claims are being examined herein. The remainder of the restriction requirement as set forth in the action of 31 October 2023 remains in force.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mounting portion” as recited in claim 1 (first, “portion” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a “portion” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, since anything can be considered as a “portion”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “mounting” preceding “portion”, where “mounting” is describing an ability of the portion to perform a mounting function, and also “connecting the razor head to the spherical handle”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the portion extending outwardly from the spherical handle is insufficient structure, in and of itself, to perform the functions of “mounting” and “connecting the razor head to the spherical handle”);
“a mounting portion” as recited in claim 18 (first, “portion” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a “portion” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, since anything can be considered as a “portion”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “mounting” preceding “portion”, where “mounting” is describing an ability of the portion to perform a mounting function, and also “configured to connect the razor head to the spherical handle”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the portion extending outwardly from the spherical handle is insufficient structure, in and of itself, to perform the functions of “mounting” and “connecting the razor head to the spherical handle”); and
“a mounting portion” as recited in claim 20 (first, “portion” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a “portion” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, since anything can be considered as a “portion”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “mounting” preceding “portion”, where “mounting” is describing an ability of the portion to perform a mounting function, and also “connecting the razor head to the spherical handle”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the portion extending outwardly from the spherical handle is insufficient structure, in and of itself, to perform the functions of “mounting” and “connecting the razor head to the spherical handle”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 14 recites, “thereon”. This recitation should read – on the planar rear support surface – to avoid any alternative interpretation, such as “thereon” referring to ‘on the control face’.
Claim 3 at line 2 recites, “a plurality of elongae”. This recitation should read – a plurality of elongate – to correct a typographical error.
Claim 7 at line 1 recites, “a mounting portion”. This mounting portion is already introduced in claim 1, such that claim 7 should be amended to refer to – the mounting portion –.
Claim 9 at line 2 recites, “a direction orthogonal” and “a surface of the spherical handle”. These recitations should read – the direction orthogonal – and – the surface of the spherical handle –, respectively, in view of the same direction and the same surface already being introduced in claim 1.
Claim 18 at line 12 recites, “thereon”. This recitation should read – on the planar rear support surface – to avoid any alternative interpretation, such as “thereon” referring to ‘on the control face’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 7, each feature required by claim 7 is already required by claim 1. As such, claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, each feature required by claim 9 is already required by claim 1. As such, claim 9 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-9 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 US Pub. No. 2004/0035003 A1 to Stiles, 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 mounting portion 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 mounting portions; note that the corresponding structure of the mounting portion disclosed in the present specification can include an arm per paragraph 26 of the present specification, and note also that each structure indicated in annotated Figs. 2 and 3 of McRae below is an arm to the same extent as ‘mounting portion 215’ illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5a of Applicant’s drawings; see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 of McRae disclosing that the mounting portion extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30), the mounting portion 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 mounting portion), 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 mounting portion 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), 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 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 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 7, McRae discloses a mounting portion [this recitation refers to the same mounting portion already introduced in claim 1] that extends outwardly from the spherical handle 30 (see the annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above), connecting the implement to the spherical handle 30 (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 8, McRae discloses that the mounting portion comprises an arm (see the annotated Figs. 2 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 9, McRae discloses that the mounting portion extends outwardly from the handle 30 in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the spherical handle 30 (see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 of McRae disclosing that the mounting portion extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30).
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 that is adapted to allow placement of the finger tips thereon [i.e., on the planar rear support surface] to apply pressure directly to the razor head, 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 elongae [sic] 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; that the implement is a razor head as required by claim 7; 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), the planar rear support surface adapted to allow placement of finger tips thereon to apply pressure directly to the rear of the razor head (the rear support surface is ‘adapted’ as recited due to the inclusion of apertures 75 and 76 thereon, noting that claim 1 of the present claims describes apertures in the rear support surface as being one type of structure that causes the rear support surface to be ‘adapted’ as required by claim 2; see the discussion of claim 3 below, too; note also that the only structure being described as ‘adapted’ in this clause is the control face – i.e., the clause does not require that the razor or the mounting portion is adapted in any particular manner) [claim 1]. Further, Abatemarco teaches that the rear support surface includes one or more gripping portions comprising a plurality of elongae [sic] 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]; the implement is a razor head (see Fig. 1) [claim 7]; 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 mounting portion 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 mounting portion 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 that a cartridge with a single blade. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, is it already known in the art to attached 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.
Turning to the particular magnitude of the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle, Stiles teaches that the distance ‘D’ that a razor head 38 is away from a grasped portion 32 of a handle 31 is a result effective variable (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 30). Stiles teaches that increasing the magnitude of the distance ‘D’ is advantageous to increase maneuverability of the shaver head into tighter shaving locations, but that as the distance ‘D’ increases the control over the shaving head begins to decrease (see paragraph 30). As a balance of these two competing factors, Stiles teaches that the distance ‘D’ can be less than ¾ of an inch, as one option (see paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the razor head of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to have a shortest distance between the razor head and the spherical handle be no greater than ¾ inch in view of the teachings of Stiles. This modification is advantageous because Stiles teaches that the distance between a razor head and a handle is a balance between maneuverability of the razor head into tight spaces with the ability to control the razor head, and Stiles acknowledges the distance being less than ¾ of an inch as a suitable balance of these two competing factors. Moreover, because Stiles teaches that the distance between a razor head and the grasped portion of a handle is a result effective variable that balances competing factors, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with various distances between the razor head and spherical handle of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, because discovering an optimum shortest distance between the razor head and handle would have been a mere design consideration based on achieving a desired balance of maneuverability and control. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
As further motivation for keeping the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to be less than ¾ inch, it is further known in the art that when a spherical handle is provided with a razor head the razor head should be positioned close to the handle. In particular, Wood discloses that, “In using instruments which require critical control, it is preferred that the human hand be positioned on the instrument with the fingers as close to the working portion of the instrument as possible.” (See col.1, lines 16-19.) Thus, Wood is further evidence that providing the mounting portion of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to be a sufficiently short length to allow the user’s fingers to be positioned as close to the shaver head as possible is obvious. Providing the mounting portion to be too long would prevent the user’s fingers from being close to the shaver head when the spherical handle is held in the user’s palm as is known to be desirable in view of the teachings of Wood per col. 2, lines 30-32.
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 US Pub. No. 2004/0035003 A1 to Stiles.
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 mounting portion 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 mounting portions; note that the corresponding structure of the mounting portion disclosed the present specification can include an arm per paragraph 26 of the present specification, and note also that each structure indicated in annotated Figs. 2 and 3 of McRae above is an arm to the same extent as ‘mounting portion 215’ illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5a of Applicant’s drawings; see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 of McRae disclosing that the mounting portion extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30), the mounting portion 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 mounting portion 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 that is adapted to allow placement of the finger tips thereon to apply pressure directly to the razor head, 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 mounting portion 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 of McRae set forth in this rejection). 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 – note that this recitation is only describing a configuration of the rear support surface, not a configuration of the entire razor handle assembly or a configuration of the mounting portion).
Providing the spherical handle with an implement the form of a razor head as taught by Wood is advantageous because a razor head is able to perform a shaving operation.
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 Wood, where the razor head is attached to the spherical handle by a mounting portion 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 mounting portion 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.
Turning to the particular magnitude of that the mounting portion extends from the spherical handle, Stiles teaches that the distance ‘D’ that a razor head 38 is away from a grasped portion 32 of a handle 31 is a result effective variable (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 30). Stiles teaches that increasing the magnitude of the distance ‘D’ is advantageous to increase maneuverability of the shaver head into tighter shaving locations, but that as the distance ‘D’ increases the control over the shaving head begins to decrease (see paragraph 30). As a balance of these two competing factors, Stiles teaches that the distance ‘D’ can be less than ¾ of an inch, as one option (see paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a length of the mounting portion of the razor handle assembly of McRae, as modified by Wood, to extend no more than ¾ inch from the spherical handle in view of the teachings of Stiles. This modification is advantageous because the length of the mounting portion of McRae, as modified, determines a distance that the razor head is spaced from the spherical handle, Stiles teaches that the distance that a razor head is spaced from a grasped portion of a handle is a balance between maneuverability of the razor head into tight spaces with the ability to control the razor head, and further because Stiles acknowledges the distance being less than ¾ of an inch as a suitable balance of these two competing factors. Moreover, because Stiles teaches that the distance between a razor head and the grasped portion of a handle is a result effective variable that balances competing factors, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with various lengths of the mounting portion of McRae, as modified by Wood, because the length of the mounting portion determines the distance between the razor head and spherical handle of McRae, as modified by Wood. Discovering an optimum length of the mounting portion would have been a mere design consideration based on achieving a desired balance of maneuverability and control of the razor head. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
As further motivation for keeping the mounting portion of McRae, as modified by Wood, to a length less than 3/4 inch, Wood teaches that when a spherical handle is provided with a razor head the razor head should be positioned close to the handle. In particular, Wood discloses that, “In using instruments which require critical control, it is preferred that the human hand be positioned on the instrument with the fingers as close to the working portion of the instrument as possible.” (See col.1, lines 16-19.) Thus, Wood is further evidence that providing the mounting portion of McRae, as modified by Wood, to be a sufficiently short length to allow the user’s fingers to be positioned as close to the shaver head as possible is obvious. Providing the mounting portion to be too long would prevent the user’s fingers from being close to the shaver head when the spherical handle is held in the user’s palm as is known to be desirable in view of the teachings of Wood per col. 2, lines 30-32.
Finally, McRae, as thus modified, provides a spherical handle that can be held in both the first and second configurations recited in claim 18, including the finger tips of the hand of the user being able to apply pressure to the control face on the inside of the razor head while shaving as required by the first configuration due to (1) the spherical handle having a diameter in the recited range and (2) the mounting portion having a length in the recited range. That is, McRae, as modified, possesses all the structural characteristics disclosed in the present application that are required to permit holding the handle in the first configuration, so McRae, as modified, discloses a handle that is able to be held in the recited first configuration. Claim 18 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim, so McRae, as modified, need only disclose structure that allows for holding the handle in the recited manner, and need not expressly disclose a user performing an action of holding the handle in the recited manner.
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 US Pub. No. 2004/0035003 A1 to Stiles, 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 mounting portion 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 mounting portions; note that the corresponding structure of the mounting portion disclosed the present specification can include an arm per paragraph 26 of the present specification, and note also that each structure indicated in annotated Figs. 2 and 3 of McRae below is an arm to the same extent as ‘mounting portion 215’ illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5a of Applicant’s drawings; see Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 65-67 disclosing that the mounting portion extends orthogonal to the surface and coincident with a radius of the handle 30), the mounting portion 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 mounting portion), 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 mounting portion 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, the rear support surface adapted to allow finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm, 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 mounting portion 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 mounting portion 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 that a cartridge with a single blade. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, is it already known in the art to attached 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.
Turning to the particular magnitude of the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle, Stiles teaches that the distance ‘D’ that a razor head 38 is away from a grasped portion 32 of a handle 31 is a result effective variable (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 30). Stiles teaches that increasing the magnitude of the distance ‘D’ is advantageous to increase maneuverability of the shaver head into tighter shaving locations, but that as the distance ‘D’ increases the control over the shaving head begins to decrease (see paragraph 30). As a balance of these two competing factors, Stiles teaches that the distance ‘D’ can be less than ¾ of an inch, as one option (see paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the razor head of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to have a shortest distance between the razor head and the spherical handle be no greater than ¾ inch in view of the teachings of Stiles. This modification is advantageous because Stiles teaches that the distance between a razor head and a handle is selected to achieve a balance between maneuverability of the razor head into tight spaces with the ability to control the razor head, and Stiles acknowledges the distance being less than ¾ of an inch as a suitable balance of these two competing factors. Moreover, because Stiles teaches that the distance between a razor head and the grasped portion of a handle is a result effective variable that balances competing factors, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with various distances between the razor head and spherical handle of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, because discovering an optimum shortest distance between the razor head and handle would have been a mere design consideration based on achieving a desired balance of maneuverability and control. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
As further motivation for keeping the shortest distance between the razor head and the handle of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to be less than ¾ inch, it is further known in the art that when a spherical handle is provided with a razor head the razor head should be positioned close to the handle. In particular, Wood discloses that, “In using instruments which require critical control, it is preferred that the human hand be positioned on the instrument with the fingers as close to the working portion of the instrument as possible.” (See col.1, lines 16-19.) Thus, Wood is further evidence that providing the mounting portion of McRae, as modified by Abatemarco, to be a sufficiently short length to allow the user’s fingers to be positioned as close to the shaver head as possible is obvious. Providing the mounting portion to be too long would prevent the user’s fingers from being close to the shaver head when the spherical handle is held in the user’s palm as is known to be desirable in view of the teachings of Wood per col. 2, lines 30-32.
McRae, as thus modified, discloses that the rear support surface is adapted to allow finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm due to the spherical handle having a diameter within the recited range and having the razor head spaced closely from the spherical handle. McRae, as thus modified, discloses the same structure as the present application to ‘adapt’ the rear support surface to allow the finger tips to apply pressure directly to the razor head while the spherical handle is held in the palm. Claim 20 is an apparatus claim, rather than a method claim, so McRae, as modified, need not expressly teach any particular manner of holding the razor, but instead need merely teach structure that allows for holding the razor in the recited manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues beginning at page 6 of the Remarks that “the fingertip actuation at the head interface is fundamentally different from McRae’s arthritic-handle objective” (quote taken from page 7 of the Remarks). This argument is not persuasive because the argument is against a manner in which the claimed handle is held, rather than a structure of the handle.
Applicant’s argument that “McRae does not disclose, teach or suggest the claim’s tight geometric relationship between the head and the spherical handle” at page 7 of the Remarks is not persuasive the argument is against McRae alone, rather than McRae as modified. In particular, both Stiles and Woods provide a motivation for positioning an implement close to the spherical handle of McRae as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since Applicant’s arguments at page 7 are against McRae individually, rather than McRae as modified, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant at pages 7-8 of the Remarks makes arguments against Abatemarco. These arguments, however, are against Abatemarco alone, rather than against McRae as modified. Applicant’s arguments against Abatemarco alone are not persuasive against a rejection relying on modifications to McRae.
Turning to Stiles, the Applicant once again argues against Stiles individually. The Applicant states, “Stiles does not teach the claim’s specific metric: the shortest distance between the razor head and the spherical handle”. This argument is against Stiles individually, rather than against McRae as modified. In particular, McRae discloses a spherical handle, Stiles provides a motivation for balancing a spacing of a razor head from a handle (i.e., increasing the spacing of a razor head from a handle improving shaving access to tight shaving locations, but decreases control). The factors discussed by Stiles are applicable regardless of the shape of the razor handle – note that a user of the handle of McRae can hold the handle in the user’s palm, as one option, so that the mounting portion forms a lever in the same manner as the portion ‘36’ of Stiles. Thus, the combined teachings of McRae and Stiles produce the claimed spacing relative to a spherical handle. Moreover, Woods likewise provides motivation for keeping the spacing of the razor head to the spherical handle as small as possible.
Regarding the Woods reference, the Applicant argues beginning at page 8 that Woods does not teach or suggest “the claimed structural relationships – particularly the specific, tight head-to-sphere proximity coupled with an inside control face accessible for fingertip pressure while the sphere is seating in the palm”. This argument is not persuasive. Woods does provide a motivation for positioning the razor head (which, as disclosed by Woods, does have a rear planar support surface that is exposed for contact with a user’s finger tips) close to the spherical handle, since Woods states, “In using instruments which require critical control, it is preferred that the human hand be positioned on the instrument with the fingers as close to the working portion [i.e., the razor head when the instrument is a razor] of the instrument as possible.” (See Woods at col. 1, lines 15-19.) Woods thus provides motivation for sizing the mounting portion of McRae to allow the fingers to be as close as possible to the razor head, which favors shortening the mounting portion. Thus, the teachings of Woods do provide a motivation for selecting a short length of the mounting portion of McRae.
Applicant’s argument at page 9 that, “To meet claim 1, the hypothetical person would need to do far more than substitute a handle shape or select a dimension from an unrelated context.” This argument is not persuasive for a host of reasons. First, the characterization of the context as ‘unrelated’ is incorrect. Each of the references is directed to a razor or is concerned with the problem of holding a handle of a hand-held implement, where precise control is a consideration. Thus, the context of each reference is not ‘unrelated’ as asserted by the Applicant. Moreover, the references need not disclose any particular manner of holding the handle, since all such recitations are merely intended use recitations. Instead, the issue is whether McRae, as modified, includes structure that allows for holding the razor in the recited manners. McRae, as modified, does include such structure, since the rear end of the razor is exposed and is spaced close to the spherical handle, and the spherical handle has a diameter in the claimed range. McRae, as modified, has all the structural features required by claim 1.
The Applicant at page 10 asserts the rejection is “without a coherent explanation of how or why the ordinary skilled person would consider the entirety of the teachings of these references”. This argument is not persuasive because the argument fails to address the explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1 above. Both Stiles and Woods are cited for their teachings related to a spacing of an implement from a handle, yet the Applicant does not acknowledge or argue against either of the motivations provided by Stiles and Woods.
The Applicant argues that McRae “teaches away from a configuration that utilises fingertip pressure on an inside head surface while palm-holding the sphere, as this is inconsistent with the arthritic-grip objective of McRae”. This assertion is not persuasive, and is premised on different holding options being mutually exclusive. No modification of McRae prevents the handle from being held in a manner desired by McRae. Instead, the modifications offer additional holding options without detracting from the options already offered by McRae.
The Applicant asserts that “Abatemarco fails to disclose any such control face ... adapted to allow placement of the finger tips thereon”. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that the claim language “a planar rear support surface that is adapted to allow placement of the finger tips thereon” is describing only a configuration of the rear support surface, and does not (in and of itself) require any particular spatial relationship between the rear support surface and the handle. If the Applicant desires the ‘adaption’ to require more than the configuration of the support surface itself, the examiner suggests amending the claim language to recite the particular structure(s) that are ‘adapted to allow placement of the finger tips’. Not only that, but in McRae as modified, the planar rear support surface is positioned closely to the spherical handle. Thus, even if the feature of “a planar rear support surface that is adapted to allow placement of the finger tips thereon” is interpreted to require more structure than a configuration of the planar rear support surface, McRae as modified regardless discloses such a structure. Regardless, since the claim is only describing a configuration of the planar rear support surface in and of itself, Abatemarco teaches such a configuration (and if the claim is interpreted contrary to its own language so that the claim requires a configuration of the entire razor, McRae as modified regardless teaches such a configuration). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that Woods fails to teach a control face comprising a planar rear support surface, but the Applicant provides no evidence or additional argument to support this conclusory statement. As such, the argument is not persuasive. (Also, with respect to claim 18, the control face is not part of the claimed structure, so the issue is moot.)
Conclusion
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