Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/450,697

ELECTRIC SHAVER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
KEENA, ELLA LORRAINE
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Conair LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
20%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 20% of cases
20%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 5 resolved
-50.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -20% lift
Without
With
+-20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.7%
+22.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 5 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment The amendment filed October 9th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 7/9/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon Hyung Do et al. (KR 20110126002 A – hereinafter Do) in view of Veltman (CN 111727549 A). Regarding claim 1, Do teaches an electric shaver comprising: a main body having (Fig. 7, Main Body 10): a shaver head (Fig. 7, Head Portion 30); and a first pair of contacts (Fig. 7, Connecting Portion 17) through which a first voltage is provided from said main body (Page 8, para 1; voltage in the body portion); a cap (Fig. 1, Head Cap 40) that is installable on said main body in a first orientation or a second orientation, and when installed on said main body covers said shaver head, said cap having: a second pair of contacts (Fig. 7, Connection Part 43) that engage said first pair of contacts when said cap is installed on said main body, to receive said first voltage; and a circuit (Fig. 6) that includes: an ultraviolet (UV) light source (Fig. 6, UVLEDs 44) that utilizes said second voltage (voltage in the cap portion, examiner interprets that the second voltage is of the proper polarity for utilization by components in the circuit since they function as intended), the second voltage being provided to a line (Fig. 6, line extending from UVLEDs 44) prior to utilization (Fig. 6, the voltage must travel through the line before reaching UVLEDs 44 for utilization), and when ON, emits UV light that irradiates said shaver head (Page 2, last paragraph). Do fails to teach a diode bridge receiving the first voltage and providing the second Voltage, the diode bridge comprising a plurality of diodes between a line and an item utilizing the second voltage. However, Veltman teaches a shaver which utilizes a diode bridge to switch from a first voltage to a second voltage (Page 7, para 3), the diode bridge comprising a plurality of diodes (It is well known in the art that a diode bridge rectifier as described on Page 7, Para 3 utilizes 4 diodes to convert AC to DC). Veltman and Do do not disclose that the diode bridge is located between a line and a pair of contacts, however in order to function properly the diode bridge must simply be located between the power source and the output, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the diode bridge to be between the line and the second pair of contacts as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaver of Do to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Veltman. It would be beneficial to include a diode bridge since the diode bridge converts AC to DC (Veltman; Page 7, para 3), and would allow the shaver to operate with an AC power source, such as being plugged into an outlet, instead of being dependent solely on batteries. Regarding claim 2, Do further teaches the electric shaver of claim 1, wherein said circuit also includes a timer (Fig. 6, Switching Portion 49; Page 4, para 4) that utilizes said second voltage. Regarding claim 3, Do further teaches the electric shaver of claim 2, wherein the timer controls a duration of time that said UV light source is ON (Page 4, para 7). Regarding claim 4, Do further teaches the electric shaver of claim 3, wherein the timer is automatically activated (Page 4, para 4; activates automatically when the cap is put on), and thus begins a UV cycle for the duration of time that said UV light source is ON, when the cap is installed on the main body. Regarding claim 5, Do further teaches the electric shaver of claim 3, wherein said UV light source is OFF when the cap is removed from the main body based upon the second pair of contacts disengaging said first pair of contacts when said cap is removed from said main body (Page 4, para 4; power is supplied through connection between 17 and 43. When the cap is off, there is no connection, no power being supplied, and therefore the UV light sources is off when the cap is removed). Regarding claim 10, Do further teaches the electric shaver of claim 1 wherein said cap is configured with (a) an inner shell (Fig. 2, Substrate 42), and (b) an outer shell (Fig. 7, outside of Cap Body 41) that covers said inner shell, and wherein said circuit resides in a space between said inner shell and said outer shell. Regarding claim 11, Do further teaches the electric shaver of claim 10, wherein said inner shell is made of non-conductive material (Page 4, second to last paragraph). Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon Hyung Do et al. (KR 20110126002 A – hereinafter Do) in view of Veltman (CN 111727549 A) and Deng-lin Yang et al. (CN 218900270 U – hereinafter Yang). Regarding claim 6, Do teaches an electric shaver comprising: a main body having (Fig. 7, Main Body 10): a shaver head (Fig. 7, Head Portion 30); and a first pair of contacts (Fig. 7, Connecting Portion 17) through which a first voltage is provided from said main body (Page 8, para 1; voltage in the body portion); a cap (Fig. 1, Head Cap 40) that is installable on said main body in a first orientation or a second orientation, and when installed on said main body covers said shaver head, said cap having: a second pair of contacts (Fig. 7, Connection Part 43) that engage said first pair of contacts when said cap is installed on said main body, to receive said first voltage; and a circuit (Fig. 6) that includes: an ultraviolet (UV) light source (Fig. 6, UVLEDs 44) that utilizes said second voltage (voltage in the cap portion, examiner interprets that the second voltage is of the proper polarity for utilization by components in the circuit since they function as intended), the second voltage being provided to a line (Fig. 6, line extending from UVLEDs 44) prior to utilization (Fig. 6, the voltage must travel through the line before reaching UVLEDs 44 for utilization), and when ON, emits UV light that irradiates said shaver head (Page 2, last paragraph), wherein said cap has an outer shell (Fig. 6, Cap Body 41) with a top wall (Fig. 6, top horizontal rectangle of Cap Body 41) and a sidewall (Fig. 6, rectangular box wall extruding downwards from the top horizontal rectangle of Cap Body 41) that extends from the top wall wherein said second pair of contacts (Fig. 7, Connection Part 43) extend along a length (Fig. 7, contacts extend along a bottom length of the sidewall portion of Cap Body 41) of the sidewall. Do fails to teach a diode bridge receiving the first voltage and providing the second Voltage. However, Veltman teaches a shaver which utilizes a diode bridge to switch from a first voltage to a second voltage (Page 7, para 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaver of Do to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Veltman. It would be beneficial to include a diode bridge since the diode bridge converts AC to DC (Veltman; Page 7, para 3), and would allow the shaver to operate with an AC power source, such as being plugged into an outlet, instead of being dependent solely on batteries. The combination of Do and Veltman fails to wherein said first pair of contacts are spring-loaded contacts that exert a mechanical force toward said second pair of contacts when said cap is installed on said main body to apply an outward force against said second pair of contacts so that said first pair of contacts contact a length of said second pair of contacts when said cap is moved away from said shaver head. However, Yang teaches a protective box for a toothbrush which has a pair of first contacts (Fig. 7, First Contact 121; Page 5, last paragraph) which are spring-loaded that exert a mechanical force towards a second pair of contacts (Fig. 7, Second Contact 122) when a cap (Fig. 7, Upper Cover 20) of the box is on the main body (Fig. 7, Main Body Shell 10) to apply an outward force against said second pair of contacts so that said first pair of contacts contact a length of said second pair of contacts when said cap is moved away from said shaver head (the spring loaded components would apply a force against one another when the cap is fully closed on the body of the case, and when the cap is opened away from the case, the first and second contacts would remain in contact for some period of time as the springs extend during the lifting of the cap). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaver of the combination of Do and Veltman to include the elements of claim 6 above as taught by Yang. Doing so would have required only the simple substitution of the existing connection system with the pogo pin type connection system taught by Yang, and the substitution would lead to the predictable result of electrically connecting the main body to the cap once the cap is shut and secured on the main body. This pogo pin type connection is well known in the art of electronics. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Do, Veltman, and Yang already teaches the electric shaver of claim 6, wherein said spring-loaded contacts are self-wiping (pogo pins are inherently self-wiping as debris on the plunger would be wiped off as it passes through the barrel when compressed in use). Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon Hyung Do et al. (KR 20110126002 A – hereinafter Do) in view of Veltman (CN 111727549 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ping-xiang Ying et al. (CN 104366951 A – hereinafter Ying). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Do and Veltman fails to teach the electric shaver of claim 1, wherein said cap also includes an indicator light that is controlled by said circuit. However, Ying teaches an indicator (Fig. 2, Sterilizer Indicator Lamp 13) light for an electric shaver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaver of the combination of Do and Veltman to include the elements of claim 8 above as taught by Ying. Doing so is beneficial as it alerts the user to if the UV sterilizer lights are on (Ying, [0013]). Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Do, Veltman, and Ying fails to teach the electric shaver of claim 8, wherein the indicator light emits visible light when said UV light source is ON. However, Ying teaches that the light emits visible light when the UV light source is ON ([0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaver of the existing combination of Do, Veltman, and Ying to include the elements of claim 9 above as taught by Ying. Doing so is beneficial as it helps to prevent a user from accidentally using the shaver while it is being disinfected (Ying, [0013]). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon Hyung Do et al. (KR 20110126002 A – hereinafter Do) in view of Veltman (CN 111727549 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhao Li et al. (CN 216180726 U – hereinafter Li). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Do and Veltman fails to teach the electric shaver of claim 10, wherein said outer shell is made of a metallic material. However, Li teaches an electric shaver where an outer shell of a cap is made of a metallic material (Fig. 2, Shaver Cover Plate 130; page 5 para 2- can be composed of stainless steel). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaver of the combination of Do and Veltman to include the elements of claim 12 above as taught by Li. Stainless steel is a beneficial material to use for the cap due to its property of corrosion resistance. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that Veltman cannot be used to modify Do since Veltman does not teach that the diode bridge provides the second voltage to a line prior to utilization by other components of the circuit, and that the diode bridge is located between the second pair of contacts and said line, and that the diode bridge comprises a plurality of diodes. However, examiner defines a line in the rejection as being the line between the diode bridge and an output such as the UV lights of Do. To function as intended, the diode bridge would be set between a power source and an output such at the UV lights, and therefore the second voltage would inherently be provided to the line prior to reaching the output, such as the UV lights of Do. Additionally, by definition a diode bridge must be comprised of a plurality of diodes. Further, while Veltman does not teach that the diode bridge is specifically located between the second pair of contacts and said line, however it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Regarding claim 6, applicant contends that Yang does not teach the claimed invention as it is described in [0018] of the specification. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a wiping action as specifically detailed in the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim 6. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Yang does adequately teach the pair of first contacts being spring-loaded to exert a mechanical force towards a second pair of contacts when a cap is on the main body to apply an outward force against the second pair of contacts so that the first pair of contacts contact a length of the second pair of contacts when a cap is moved away from the shaver head, as detailed in the rejection of claim 6. Examiner looks towards Do to teach that the second pair of contacts extends along a length of the sidewall of the cap, and does not rely on Yang for this limitation. 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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET. 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. /ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12539635
FOOD PRODUCT SLICING APPARATUS HAVING A PRODUCT GATE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF OPERATING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
20%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-20.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 5 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month