DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 May 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/518,009, filed on 03 November 2021.
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jungnickel (US 2019/0200742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jungnickel discloses a method for manufacturing a handle for a personal care implement (title/abstract, ¶ 70; FIG. 1), the method comprising steps of:
molding the handle, equated with the claimed core-connector unit, from a fiber-reinforced material, the core-connector unit comprising a core structure and a unitary connector for attaching and detaching a head to and from the handle (¶¶ 36, 65) and
molding a polymeric material onto the core structure to form a second component, the second component at last partially covering the core structure (¶¶ 52, 65).
Regarding claim 2, Jungnickel discloses a further step of molding a third component onto at least one of the core structure and the second component, the third component at least partially covering the at least one of the core structure and the second component to form a gripping area of the handle (¶¶ 64-66).
Regarding claim 3, Jungnickel discloses the third component is made from at least one of a thermoplastic elastomer material (¶¶ 64+).
Regarding claim 11, Jungnickel discloses the fiber-reinforced material is a composite material comprising a polymer base material (¶¶ 40+).
Regarding claim 12, Jungnickel discloses the polymer base material is selected from the group consisting of polyamide, styrene acrylonitrile resin, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate, recycled plastic materials, and any combination thereof (¶¶ 49-50).
Regarding claim 16-18, Jungnickel discloses that the core unit, the polymeric material, and the third component can be injection molded (¶ 65)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jungnickel (US 2019/0200742 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Jungnickel (US 2019/0248049 A1, hereinafter Jungnickel-2).
Regarding claim 4, Jungnickel does not appear to expressly disclose a cavity in the connector.
However, Jungnickel-2 discloses a similar process of forming a handle (title/abstract) in which a connector portion 14 is injection molded with a cavity 82 (FIG. 6-10, 13; ¶¶ 105+, 109+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector of Jungnickel to include the cavity of Jungnickel-2, in order to provide a recess for snap-fit elements which are known in the art and would provide a sufficiently strong connection and stability between the head and the handle (Jungnickel-2 ¶ 46).
Regarding claims 5-6, Jungnickel discloses that the connector includes a snap-fit element (¶ 36).
Jungnickel does not appear to expressly disclose how this snap-fit element is integrated.
However, Jungnickel-2 discloses a similar process of forming a handle (title/abstract) in which a connector portion 14 is injection molded with a cavity 82 into which a spring-loaded ball element 42 is inserted (FIG. 6-10, 13; ¶¶ 105+, 109+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector of Jungnickel to include the cavity and spring-loaded ball element of Jungnickel-2, because such snap-fit elements are known in the art and would provide a sufficiently strong connection and stability between the head and the handle (Jungnickel-2 ¶ 46).
Claim 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (US 2019/0200742 A1) in view of Jungnickel (US 2019/0248049 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Engel et al. (US 8,210,580 B2) and Northwestern (Steel and Stainless Steel Press Fit Ball Plunger with Stainless Ball)
Regarding claims 7-8, Jungnickel-2 discloses that the spring-loaded ball element may be fixed in the cavity by a press-fitting process, welding and/or gluing (¶¶ 49, 106, 109; FIG. 13).
Modified Jungnickel does not appear to expressly disclose a cap.
However, Engel discloses a spring-loaded ball detent assembly (title/abstract) in which a plate P is rigidly joined to the detent sub-assembly N or is integral with it (4:33-45; FIG. 2).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Jungnickel to include the metal capped ball detent of Engel, because such devices are known in the art and a separate cap allows adjustment of the protrusion of the ball (Engel 4:43-45).
Regarding claim 10, Jungnickel-2 discloses the spring is made of stainless steel (¶ 48).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (US 2019/0200742 A1) in view of Jungnickel (US 2019/0248049 A1) and Engel et al. (US 8,210,580 B2), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Northwestern (Steel and Stainless Steel Press Fit Ball Plunger with Stainless Ball).
Jungnickel does not appear to expressly disclose the cap material.
However, Northwestern further demonstrates that press-fit ball detent are made with stainless steel balls and housings.
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Jungnickel to include the metal of Northwestern, because such devices are known and could be used with expected results.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungnickel (US 2019/0200742 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Raman et al. (US 2015/0034858 A1).
Jungnickel discloses that the core is formed from a magnetic and/or ferromagnetic material comprising the claimed PA, SAN, PBT, PET or recycled polymers and 3-25 wt% aluminum oxide, boron nitride or aluminum silicate; and 45-67 wt% iron oxide and glass fibers at about 4.5 wt% (¶¶ 41-42, MPEP § 2144.05), and that the filler may be varied to control the handle’s center of gravity and mass/weight distribution, thermal conductivity, and flowability (¶¶ 40, 75+, 78, 82+).
Jungnickel does not appear to expressly disclose that the fibers are in an amount of 10-50 wt% or that the second component includes the magnetic/ferromagnetic materials.
However, Ramen discloses a thermally conductive polymer composition (title/abstract) which include metal oxides and glass and/or carbon fibers in amounts of 0.1-70 wt% (¶¶ 11-12; MPEP § 2144.05).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Jungnickel to include the fiber amounts of Ramen, in order to improve molding cycle time (¶¶ 6-7). In addition, Jungnickel’s suggestion to control the center of gravity and weight distribution (¶¶ 78, 82+) would motivate the skilled artisan to try/attempt to include the same or different magnetic and/or ferromagnetic compositions in the second component in order to provide greater control over said center of gravity or weight distribution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Specifically the newly claimed limitation, that the core structure (18) extends along at least 50% (or 75% or 85%) of the overall length extension (28) of the handle (12), is novel. The prior art’s core structure clearly does not extend for at least half of the of the length as shown in FIG. 8 of Jungnickel-2, in contrast with the instant FIG. 1-3.
PNG
media_image1.png
323
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
791
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights