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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/12/2026 (including an IDS) has been entered.
The IDS references “all office actions” in 30/072,966 and 30/072,969 but those files have no office actions in the record when accessed. These entries were struck through for clarity of record.
Claims pending are 1, 3-5, 7-14 from 6/11/2025, submitted as preliminary amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2014/0096402).
Regarding claim 1, Nakasuka discloses A handle (10) for a shaving system comprising:
a proximal end having a first surface that is circular and flat (right end of barrel 10, figure 2 (c ) or 5(a) for example) ; a distal end (left end of barrel 10, same figures); a gripping portion between the proximal end and the distal end (the sides of barrel 10 are capable of being gripped, therefore, per se, are a gripping portion), and wherein the first surface comprises at least one magnetic element (35- 35 figure 6b at the right end of the barrel, the right facing surface thereof) and wherein the gripping portion defines an opening in communication with a rinse cavity defined by the first surface (see through hole of figure 5—within barrel 10).
Regarding claim 3. Nakasuka further discloses the rinse cavity is substantially circular (see 10 figure 3, inferring same cross for figures 5-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-11 and 13-14is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 10,335,970) in view of evidence from (CN 21498203) Avery (US 2021/0086381) Jonte (US 2013/0320116) and Abramsky (US 2022/0168912) and Johnson US 3,127,676, and Heide US 2004/0158990.
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses A handle (3, 1, 2, etc. figure 1) for a shaving system comprising:
A proximal end having a first surface that is not circular and flat (7). The use of circular flat couplings, rather than the ellipsoidal and contoured coupling of 7 with 16 would have been obvious, because the coupling style being circular and flat is old and well known for coupling elements with magnets, as seen below:
Magnets coupling flat elements old and well known
Newly Cited CN 21498203 discloses a shaving device where plates of blades and other members are mounted to a handle by a set of magnetic elements. E.g. Claims 2-4. This suggests using magnets to mount features on blade handles, etc. is known in the art of shaving.
Jonte (US 2013/0320116) discloses and discusses the use of magnets to couple in fastened and held relationship flat circular elements which are intended to have flow therethrough: e.g. [0002]: “Fluid delivery devices and docking bases utilizing a magnetic coupling provide a retaining force between the device and the docking base that may be overcome by physical force exerted by the user.” This is the reason to use magnets to couple—it permits through-flow of fluid and also permits releasable coupling which can be overcome by a user. Figure 7 explicitly shows two flat circular portions joined by opposed magnets embedded in the faces thereof. ([0031]: “ In an illustrative embodiment, one of the base element 74 and the spray head element 76 includes a magnetic array, while the other of the spray head element 76 and the base element 74 includes a magnetically attractive element.” Additionally, the Jonte discuses use of opposed polarity, e.g. [0038] which is a known way to mount co-acting magnets.
Using magnets to join elements of personal care items is also depicted in US 2022/0168912: “[0010] The handle section is removably connected to a holder. Preferably, both the handle section and the holder have magnets that attract one another.”
Hashimoto discloses a distal end (lower end of 4 figure 1); a gripping portion between the proximal end and the distal end (the sides 5 figure 1 are a gripping portion explicitly, though the length of handle up through 3/6 figure 1 is also a gripping portion since it may be gripped).
As noted above, Hashimoto lacks the first surface comprises at least one magnetic and wherein the gripping portion defines an opening in communication with a rinse cavity defined by the first surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the coupling of Hashimoto with a magnetic coupling in annular fashion, since doing so is a known alternative method for mounting structures with flow of liquid being provided therein—and the circle, flat, and annular aspects of Jonte would have been known in that problem solving area (how to join elements where there is a flow—Jonte provides a known solution.
While Jonte is a shower head or other plumbing element, US 2022/0168912 supports the conclusion that in shavers the use of magnets for coupling is also routine.
Similarly, Hashimoto does not show a circular shaving surface—and therefore the applicability of a circular mounting is not clearly obvious on that evidence alone. See in support thereof Johnson, (US 3,127,676) which shows that shaving razors with circular mountings and blades, etc. are old and therefore per se known to be selected. Johnson line 14+ indicated the advantage of an annular blade construction to specifically be no sharp edge (corner) parts, contrary to straight blades. Additionally, see evidence of US 2004/0158990, which shows straight blade rectangular cartridges, but specifically notes the suitability of substituting circular miniature razor heads: “[0043] Within the ambit of the invention the miniature razor head 20 may be of oval or circular configuration. In other words, by appropriately shaped openings in the grip shells 15, 16 at one end thereof and by a corresponding shape of the recesses 24 25 in the supports 13, 14 it is possible alternatively to utilize rectangular and oval and circular miniature razor heads.”
See also oval head shaving razor with complete through -hole at Avery (US 2021/0086381) which shows an annular mount for a shaver head, which is the same in principal as applicant’s present invention, apart from being a pure circle (210 is oblong and oval, not pure circle).
Based on the preceeding, it would have been obvious to make an Avery style mount and circularize it for the coupling of Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 3. Hashimoto discloses the rinse cavity is not substantially circular (see 7, 16, 25 figure 1-3, however as noted above, changing the shape to be circular is not inventive, since this is a known shape for razors (US 2004/0158990; and Johnson, (US 3,127,676))
Regarding claim 4 a first surface of Avery does not defines one or more pockets pocket dimensioned to receive the at least one magnet magnetic element as seen in Avery (304, etc. figure s 4-6; see [0064]) because the magnet pockets are shown explicitly in the cartridge, not the handle. The reversal is however obvious, since Jonte (US 2013/0320116) shows magnets or magnetic material on both sides of a joint.
Claim 5 is likewise obvious, since having one magnetic element comprises two adjacent magnetic elements having opposing polarities= is a routine implementation of how magnets for coupling is known to work, as shown in Jonte, above, and in Avery, which discusses the reversal or inclusion on both sides of the coupling of appropriate magnetic materials : “[0047] In various embodiments, the housing 104 is fabricated from one or more ferromagnetic materials such as iron, nickel or steel which attracts magnets within the disposable cartridge 300. In other embodiments, the housing 104 comprises magnets recessed into the first or second annular rims 210, 206 which attract ferromagnetic materials in the disposable cartridge 300.”
Regarding claim 9, the first surface of Avery (inside the rim, see figures generall) defines a rinse cavity includes having a ledge (shown where the mounting takes place).
Regarding claim 11 as above, the coupling using magnetism is shown in Avery and Jonte, etc. inter alia, and further, the number of magnetic elements is not an obvious difference for patentability, since the selection of how many magnets is desired is within the level of ordinary skill, and the art shows using the at least four magnetic elements. (10 figure 1 in Jonte is a stack of 5 magnets; Figure 9 thereof shows an annular array of varied magnetic fluxes with 8 distinct flux regions or elements—“ [0032] In certain illustrative embodiments, the magnetic array in base element 74 and/or spray head element 76 are annular arrays, such as array 50 shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, although other shaped arrays are also contemplated. The annular array of FIGS. 8 and 9 illustratively include rotating magnetic flux distributions alternating between axial and transverse planes to generate increased magnetic fields in an axial direction toward the other of the base element 74 and spray head element 76.”
Typically also; selecting how much of something is desirable (number of or amount of magnetism) is routine selection for those of ordinary skill, since choosing more or less is a result effective variable (magnet number is proportional to force amount for the holding force—therefore clearly and obviously selectable).
Retgarding claims 7, 8 and 10—the adjustment of a size of the shaving face of the razor is not inventive, nor is the lip size choice in the coupling surfaces—both impact shaving and holding force respectively and are therefore result effective variables on the present record. It has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here, making the size bigger or smaller permits bigger or smaller shaving (as noted desirable in Heide US 2004/0158990; discussing the use of smaller razors for more precision, and larger for larger areas of shaving in a single stroke).
Regarding claims 13-14 Hashimoto shows an angle for the first surface (implicit in the location of coupling, being replaced by known alternative magnetic rings—as above) is at a non-90 degree angle to the handle. See also Avery at figure 1, showing a similar angle for the handle to the first surface of the coupling between cartridge face.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights