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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 58 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the bristle element” (claim 58, line 2) should be changed to --the bristle elements--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 57 be found allowable, claim 73 will be objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Kim2 in view of Brown
Claims 57-62, 73, 75, and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200446473 Y1 (“Kim2”) (citations are to the translation filed 06/13/2025) in view of US 20120227201 A1 (“Brown”).
Kim2 pertains to a brush assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Brown pertains to a brush assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 57, Kim2 discloses an applicator device for cosmetic and/or hygiene applications (Abstr.; Fig. 1; pp. 1-2, cosmetic brush), comprising
a shaft with a longitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end (Figs. 1, 3, shaft 30 with a longitudinal axis (e.g., centerline of shaft 30), distal end (near reference 36), proximal end (opposite the distal end)),
a carrier element comprising at least one central opening that is a through hole (Figs. 1-3, carrier 20 has a central through hole through which the bristles of brush 10 extend);
bristle elements are arranged at the carrier element in an anchor-free manner and extend through the at least one central opening (Figs. 1-3; p. 2, bristles of brush 10 extend through the central opening of carrier 20 and are “anchor-free” because they are melted together to form step 12, where the bristles are arranged in carrier 20 and held by step 12 when assembled; see Spec. Figs. 17-19; p. 52, line 12–p. 53, line 30, p. 27, line 17–p. 28, line 22; p. 33, line 5–p. 34, line 21),
wherein
the carrier element is connected to the shaft (Figs. 1, 3, carrier 20 is connected to shaft 30 by being put onto a receiving section 36 at the distal end of shaft 30),
and the carrier element forms a base with a closed outer contour which serves as a connection to the shaft (Figs. 1-3, carrier 20 forms a base with a closed outer contour that connects to the shaft 30).
Kim2 does not explicitly disclose:
a shaft with a longitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end, and a receiving opening at the distal end that opens in a direction of the longitudinal axis;
the carrier element is in the receiving opening and extends into the receiving opening along the longitudinal axis.
However, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious this claim.
Brown discloses:
a shaft with a longitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end, and a receiving opening at the distal end that opens in a direction of the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, shaft 30 has a longitudinal axis (horizontal as shown in Fig. 2), a proximal end (towards reference 12), and a distal end (towards reference 38), and the distal end has a receiving opening (circular opening of element 30 that receives elements 32 and 34); see discussion below re “shaft”);
a carrier element comprising at least one central opening that is a through hole (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier element 34 has central openings (e.g., through holes for central bristles 52);
bristle elements are arranged at the carrier element in an anchor-free manner and extend through the at least one central opening (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, bristles 52 extend through the central openings of carrier 34 in an anchor-free manner (Fig. 4, melt 42); see Spec. Figs. 17-19; p. 52, line 12–p. 53, line 30, p. 27, line 17–p. 28, line 22; p. 33, line 5–p. 34, line 21),
wherein the carrier element is in the receiving opening and extends into the receiving opening along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34, with anchorless bristles 40, is placed in the circular receiving opening of element 30, along the longitudinal axis of element 30),
wherein
the carrier element is connected to the shaft (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 is connected to the shaft),
and the carrier element forms a base with a closed outer contour which serves as a connection to the shaft (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 forms a base with a closed outer contour that connects to the shaft of element 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Brown with Kim2 to modify Kim2 to use a receiving opening and a carrier that connects and fits into the receiving opening, as taught by Brown. To the extent Brown does not disclose a “shaft”, this would have been obvious because it is a case of simple substitution, where the distal end of shaft 30 of Kim2 would be modified to have a receiving opening as taught by Brown (circular receiving opening of element 30), and the carrier 20 of Kim2 would be modified to the type taught by Brown (carrier 34 with bristles 40, which would fit into the circular receiving opening). This substitution would yield a predictable result and provide a secure brush device as taught by Brown (where the bristles would be aligned with the longitudinal axis of the shaft/handle). Alternatively, the carrier 20 of Kim2 would be modified to fit inside a receiving opening modified into the shaft 30 of Kim2 (like in Brown: the circular opening of base 30 that mates with carrier 34 that fits into the circular opening) instead of fitting around shaft 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the connection parts in this manner because it is only a matter of design choice and the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular arrangement of those features. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 451, 452, n.1 (CCPA 1955) (“to reverse the operation of the relatively moving parts...would not amount to invention, mere reversal of such movement being an obvious expedient”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A); see, e.g., US 20100287718 A1 (“Kim”) Figs. 2-3, showing a reversal of parts for the connection of bristle carrier 120 to a shaft 110, where one embodiment shows carrier 120 surrounding a distal protrusion of shaft 110 (Figs. 2, 4), and where another embodiment shows carrier 120 inserted into a distal opening of shaft 110 (Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 58, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Brown further discloses wherein the carrier element carrying the bristle element[s] is fully introduced in the receiving opening to be flush with an upper edge at the distal end of the shaft (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 with anchorless bristles 40 is placed in the receiving opening of base 30 and is flush with an upper edge at the distal end of base 30).
The obviousness rationale for claim 58 is the same as for claim 57. To the extent this limitation requires the carrier to be “flush” such that it does not protrude beyond the distal end of the shaft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the thickness of the carrier 34 of Brown to achieve that “flush” fit because this is a simple design choice that results in a certain appearance and also better fit and function (e.g., no unnecessary protruding surfaces or gaps that may hinder the use of the brush on an object). Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having the “flush” fit other than the ordinary result of preventing injuries or hindering/holding back applicator medium (Spec. p. 5, lines 1-8). Absent a teaching as to criticality of this positioning as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 59, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 58 as applied above. Brown further discloses wherein at least one recess is in the upper edge at the distal end of the shaft, and wherein the at least one recess is configured to receive lateral protrusions of the carrier element (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 has protrusions 36 that are received by recesses 38 in the upper edge at distal end of base 30).
The obviousness rationale for claim 59 is the same as for claim 58.
Regarding claim 60, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Brown further discloses wherein the receiving opening is in a shape of a blind-hole-like depression which comprises a rectangular, an elliptical, a circular, a polygonal, or a regular polygonal form (Figs. 1-4, hole of body 30 is a circular-shaped blind hole).
The obviousness rationale for claim 60 is the same as for claim 57. To the extent the Kim2/Brown combination requires the shaft 30 and/or brush 10 of Kim2 to have a flat shape as shown (as opposed to a circular pattern), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to use a shape for the receiving opening that matches the profile of the shaft 30 and/or brush 10 of Kim2. For example, if the cross sectional area of the shaft 30 is rectangular, then the shape of the receiving opening could be a rectangular blind hole as well (instead of circular as taught by Brown). This is a simple design choice as matching a receiving opening to the shape of the shaft and/or brush is a common design choice that makes use of the available space to strengthen the connection. Further, Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to the differences in the claimed shape over the prior art (see Spec. p. 29, lines 7-13). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed container was a “mere matter of choice” and is not “anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious” over the prior art); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 61, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Brown further discloses wherein the carrier element and the shaft are connected to one another by means of positive fit and/or force fit and/or material fit, and wherein the connection is realized in the form of a snap connection, by ultrasonic welding, by injection molding, by bonding and/or crimping and/or by heat exposure (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 has protrusions 36 that are received by recesses 38 in the upper edge at distal end of base 30, which is a snap connection that connects via positive fit).
The obviousness rationale for claim 61 is the same as for claim 57.
Regarding claim 62, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Brown further discloses wherein the carrier element and the shaft are inseparably connected such that the carrier element and the shaft cannot be disassembled without being destroyed (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 is inseparably connected to body 30 as recited via protrusions 36 inserted into recesses 38).
The obviousness rationale for claim 62 is the same as for claim 57 with the following additional consideration:
To the extent Brown does not explicitly disclose “inseparably connected such that the carrier element and the shaft cannot be disassembled without being destroyed”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to shape and size the Brown protrusions 36 and recesses 38 such that the resulting snap fit results in the carrier 34 being “inseparably connected” to the body 30 (or shaft 30 of Kim2 as modified) such that the snap fit cannot be undone without destroying the snap fit connection (e.g., destroying the protrusions 36 and/or the recesses 38). This is simply a design choice that is made based on the desired use of the device. For example, if a more secure connection is desired (to prevent the brush portion 10 from falling off the shaft 30), then the shape and size of the snap fit may be designed accordingly (e.g., the protrusions extend very far into the recesses); alternatively, if a less secure connection is desired, such as for replacement purposes, then the shape and size of the snap fit may be designed accordingly (e.g., the protrusions extend shallowly into the recesses). Examiner notes that although Kim2 discloses an embodiment where the brush portion 10 is removable from the shaft 30 (Kim Figs. 1, 3, protrusion 24, hook 34, release 32), this feature may be modified or removed in order to increase the security of the connection (e.g., in order to make a stronger connection or a desire to prevent the customer from separating the brush from the shaft for replacement purposes). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that this “inseparably connected” limitation provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 73, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. As modified in claim 1, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious this limitation, “wherein the carrier element is inserted into the shaft along the longitudinal axis”.
Regarding claim 75, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Kim2 further discloses wherein the application device is a nail polish brush, a lip gloss brush, a mascara brush, an interdental cleaner or a single tuft brush (Figs. 1-3; pp. 1, 2, the device as shown is a cosmetic brush that is capable of the recited intended uses, and is also a single tuft brush 10).
Regarding claim 86, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Brown further discloses wherein the carrier element is connected to the shaft in a non-moving manner (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0031-0035, carrier 34 is non-movingly connected to the opening of body 30 via protrusions 36 inserted into recesses 38, which as applied to the Kim2/Brown combination, the opening is located at the distal end of the Kim2 shaft 30).
The obviousness rationale for claim 86 is the same as for claim 62. Examiner further notes that carrier 20 of Kim2 is also connected to shaft 30 in a non-moving manner.
Kim2 in view of Brown and Gueret
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200446473 Y1 (“Kim2”) (citations are to the translation filed 06/13/2025) in view of US 20120227201 A1 (“Brown”) and US 20050196220 A1 (“Gueret”).
Kim2 pertains to a brush assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Brown pertains to a brush assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Gueret pertains to a brush assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 74, the Kim2/Brown combination makes obvious the applicator device of claim 57 as applied above. Kim2 and Brown do not explicitly disclose wherein at the proximal end of the shaft there is at least one fastening means for realizing a connection with a grip element, and wherein the at least one fastening means at the proximal end of the shaft is in the form of a thread or in the form of latches. However, the Kim2/Brown/Gueret combination makes obvious this claim.
Gueret discloses wherein at the proximal end of the shaft (Fig. 3, end 8 of shaft 6) there is at least one fastening means for realizing a connection with a grip element (Fig. 3, element 90 connects to cap 5 (grip element)), and wherein the at least one fastening means at the proximal end of the shaft is in the form of a thread or in the form of latches (Fig. 3, element 90 is a latch that snap-fits into groove of cap 5; ¶ 0114, “the stem 6 may include an endpiece 8 for securing to the closure cap 5 by snap-fastening and/or by friction, for example. In an exemplary embodiment, the endpiece 8 may include a plate 90”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Gueret with the Kim2/Brown combination in order to add a secured cap/decorative handle to the shaft 30 of Kim2, without the use of adhesives for that connection, which could be harmful to humans when used in connection with cosmetics (see Kim2 pp. 1-2). The added cap/decorative handle would add functionality to the Kim2 brush, such as to use it as a captured brush for a cosmetic liquid product (Gueret Fig. 3).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claim 64 has been canceled. Claims 57-63 and 65-87 are pending. Claims 63, 65-72, 76-85, and 87 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 57-62, 73-75, and 86 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks do not accurately describe the substance of the interview discussion or the rejection of record (Reply at 8-9). Brown is relied on for element 30 (in part) and element 34 (bristle carrier). As discussed in the 09/12/2025 Office Action and the § 103 rejection of claim 57 above (which is modified based on Applicant’s amendments), the receiving opening of element 30 is the circular receiving opening, not the rectangular snap fit recesses. Accordingly, the proposed combination of Brown with Kim2 as discussed above makes obvious the device of claim 57.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are conclusory and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723