DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,548,178; claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,894,331; claims 1-5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,639,807; and claims 1-4, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,350,774 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of those patents teach a handle for a shaving system comprising a handle having an appendage with a recess for receiving a piece of magnet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dischler (6,035,535).
Regarding claim 1, Dischler teaches a handle for a shaving system, the handle comprising:
an elongate handle body (12a) having a distal end and a proximal end,
an appendage 62 protruding from the distal end, and
a magnetic portion comprising at least one permanent magnet 138 disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage.
See Figs. 1 and 12.
As to the term “permanent magnet”, the magnet 138 does not require an external power source or electric current to generate the magnet field. Therefore, it is considered a permanent magnet.
Regarding claim 5, the magnet 138 being centered along a length of the appendage is best seen in Fig. 11A.
Regarding claim 7, Dischler teaches shaving system, the shaving system comprising:
a handle (12a), the handle including an elongate handle body having a distal end and a proximal end,
an appendage 62 protruding from the distal end, and
a magnetic portion 138 comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage; and
a shaving assembly (10a) comprising a ferrous portion 132 configured to magnetically engage with the permanent magnet.
See Figs. 1 and 12.
As to the term “permanent magnet”, the magnet does not require an external power source or electric current to generate the magnet field. Therefore, it is considered a permanent magnet.
As to the term “ferrous”, element 132 is attracted to a magnet. Therefore, it is a ferrous material.
Regarding claim 13, the magnet 138 being centered along a length of the appendage is best seen in Fig. 11A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petricca et al. (6,237,232), hereinafter Petricca, in view of Dischler (6,035,535) and Mebus et al. (DE 10 2009 050 344), hereinafter Mebus.
Regarding claim 1, Petricca teaches a handle for a shaving system substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the handle comprising:
an elongate handle body 63 having a distal end and a proximal end,
an appendage 66 protruding from the distal end, and
a magnetic portion comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage.
See Fig. 2.
Petricca does not teach “a magnetic portion comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage 62.”
Dischler teaches “a magnetic portion 138 comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage” for connecting a handle (12a; Fig. 1) and a shaving assembly (10a; Fig. 1) together. See Fig. 12.
Mebus teaches “a magnetic portion (2.3) comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess (2.2) at a distal end of the appendage” for connecting a handle 2 and a shaving assembly 3 together. See Figs. 1-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a magnetic portion to the shaving system of Petricca as taught by Dischler and Mebus for connecting the handle and the shaving assembly together.
Regarding claim 2, a planar rim is best seen in Fig. 2 in Petricca.
Regarding claim 3, the modified shaving system of Petricca teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rim surface on the handle is disposed at an angle of about 10 to 20 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide to claimed angle to the modified shaving system of Petricca, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Petricca teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the appendage in form of a cuboid having radiused edges.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the appendage in form of a cuboid having radiused edges because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the appendage provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the appendage in Petricca because both types of the appendage can engage with the cartridge
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the appendage in Petricca in form of a cuboid having radiused edges to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Dischler and Mebus teach centering the magnet along a length of the appendage.
Regarding claim 6, a yoke 16 having a pair of arm 77 and a central portion is best seen in Fig. 2 in Petricca.
Regarding claim 7, Petricca teaches shaving system substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the shaving system comprising:
a handle 63, the handle including an elongate handle body having a distal end and a proximal end,
an appendage 66 protruding from the distal end, and
a magnetic portion comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage; and
a shaving assembly 14 comprising a ferrous portion configured to magnetically engage with the permanent magnet.
See Fig. 2.
Petricca does not teach “a magnetic portion comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage” and the shaving assembly having “a ferrous portion configured to magnetically engage with the permanent magnet.”
Dischler teaches “a magnetic portion 138 comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess at a distal end of the appendage” and the shaving assembly having “a ferrous portion 132 configured to magnetically engage with the permanent magnet” for connecting a handle (12a; Fig. 1) and a shaving assembly (10a; Fig. 1) together. See Fig. 12. As to the term “permanent magnet”, the magnet does not require an external power source or electric current to generate the magnet field. Therefore, it is considered a permanent magnet. As to the term “ferrous”, element 132 is attracted to a magnet. Therefore, it is a ferrous material.
Mebus teaches “a magnetic portion (2.3) comprising at least one permanent magnet disposed in a recess (2.2) at a distal end of the appendage” and the shaving assembly 3 having “a ferrous portion configured to magnetically engage with the permanent magnet” for connecting a handle 2 and a shaving assembly 3 together. See Figs. 1-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a magnetic portion to the shaving system of Petricca as taught by Dischler and Mebus for connecting the handle and the shaving assembly together.
Regarding claim 8, a cartridge 14 with an interface element 16 is best seen in Fig. 2 in Petricca.
Regarding claim 9, the appendage 66 mechanically engaging with the interface 16. Therefore, when the appendage 66 magnetically engages with the interface 16, the ferrous portion is provided in the interface element to replace a mechanical connection.
Regarding claim 10, a planar rim is best seen in Fig. 2 in Petricca.
Regarding claim 11, the modified shaving system of Petricca teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rim surface on the handle is disposed at an angle of about 10 to 20 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide to claimed angle to the modified shaving system of Petricca, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Petricca teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the appendage in form of a cuboid having radiused edges.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the appendage in form of a cuboid having radiused edges because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the appendage provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the appendage in Petricca because both types of the appendage can engage with the cartridge
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the appendage in Petricca in form of a cuboid having radiused edges to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Dischler and Mebus teach centering the magnet along a length of the appendage.
Regarding claim 14, a yoke 16 having a pair of arm 77 and a central portion is best seen in Fig. 2 in Petricca.
Regarding claim 15, the interface element 16 having a cavity is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 16, Dischler and Mebus teach the permanent magnet and the ferrous element being positioned face-to-face to create attractive magnetic force.
Regarding claim 17, a tab 77 is best seen in Fig. 2 in Petricca.
Regarding claim 18, the modified shaving system of Petricca teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the ferrous element in form of a strip. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the ferrous element in form of a strip since such shape of the ferrous element does not change the magnetic force.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights