Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/727,639

DEVICE FOR APPLYING A LIQUID MATERIAL TO HAIR AND DETANGLING THE HAIR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 22, 2022
Examiner
STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 1194 resolved
-15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1256
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1194 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 . 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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered. Claim Objections Claims 1, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 5 should state “a liquid material” and line 17 should state “the liquid material”. Claim 11, line 5 should state “a liquid material” and line 17 should state “the liquid material”. Claim 14, line 5 should state “a liquid material” and line 18 should state “the liquid material”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piatetsky (US 6,530,378) in view of Logel et al. (US 10,773,869). Piatetsky discloses a device of claims 1, 11, and providing a device claim 14, comprising a main body (4) comprising a first body (4) and a second body (11) (Figure 5), wherein the first body connects to the second body forming a cavity, wherein the first body comprises a plate receiving section (57) forming an opening to the cavity wherein the cavity acts as a liquid reservoir for storing a liquid material (50) (Figure 6), and wherein the second body comprises slots (13); a plate (28) connecting the first body at the plate receiving section; and bristles (16) connecting the second body in alignment with the slots, wherein the bristles comprise holes (23), wherein the holes align with the slots in the second body and wherein the bristles are tapered (shown in Fig. 10) wherein the plate demounts from the first body and allows for filling of a liquid material into the cavity and mounts to the first body sealing the first body, and wherein the liquid material flows from the cavity through the slots and through the holes (23) in the bristles for moisturizing hair and wherein the holes allow even distribution of the liquid material (see Figure 6; col. 6, lines 55-65). Piatesky discloses the claimed invention except for a plate receptor and the first body comprise a cut-section at the top positioned adjacent to the plate receiving section, a plate protrusion member wherein the plate protrusion member extends from a side of the plate and helps to connect the plate at the plate receptor; a sealing member wherein the sealing member mounts underneath the plate to help seal the plate to the first body. Summers teaches a container cap (11) comprising a plate receptor and the first body comprises a cut-section (24) at the top positioned adjacent to the plate receiving section, a plate protrusion member (12) wherein the plate protrusion member extends from a side of the plate and helps to connect the plate at the plate receptor; a sealing member (15) wherein the sealing member mounts underneath the plate (11) to help seal the plate to the first body (see Figure 6; col. 4, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lid of Piatesky be made with a plate receptor and sealing member as taught by Logel et al. to allow for a taper-proof lid. Claims 5 and 18, comprises a handle (5), wherein the handle connects to the main body (see Figures 5 and 6). Claims 7 and 20, the bristles detangle the hair (i.e. that is the result product of brushing hair. Piatetsky discloses the claimed invention except for the liquid material is one of a hairdressing agents, a hair dye, a moisturizer, a protective agent shampoo, conditioner, and a hair restorer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the liquid of Piatetsky which discloses to be used on hair be one hairdressing agent, a hair dye, a moisturizer, a protective agent shampoo, conditioner, and a hair restorer, since applicant has not disclosed that liquid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any of these hair liquids. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant argument that Piatetsky discloses a fundamentally different structure because it utilizes an absorbent filler rather than a cavity that “acts as a liquid reservoir.” This argument is not persuasive. Piatetsky discloses a brush body defining an internal chamber that stores liquid material (Col. 5, Lines 39–44; Col. 6, Lines 19–24). The presence of an absorbent filler within the chamber does not negate the fact that the chamber functions as a liquid reservoir. A reservoir is broadly understood as a space for storing liquid, and the liquid in Piatetsky is indisputably stored within the internal cavity of the brush body. The absorbent filler merely regulates flow and does not structurally distinguish the claimed “cavity” in a patentable manner. Applicant further argues that the claimed liquid distribution mechanism differs because the claims recite liquid flowing “from the cavity through the slots and through the holes in the bristles,” whereas Piatetsky uses absorbent feed rods and bores. This argument is not persuasive because both systems provide a fluid communication path from an internal liquid storage region through the bristles to the exterior. In response to Applicant’s argument on the roller ball dispensing feature is unpersuasive. The roller ball disclosed in Piatetsky regulates application of liquid at the distal end of the bristle. The claims merely require that holes allow distribution of liquid material and do not exclude additional dispensing features. In response to Applicant’s argument that Piatetsky relies on pressure generated by flexure of the base, whereas the claims allegedly recite gravity-based flow. However, the claims do not positively recite gravity-only flow or exclude pressure-assisted flow. The recited structure merely requires liquid to flow from the cavity through slots and bristle holes. Piatetsky discloses liquid movement from an internal storage region through bristle structures to the scalp, which meets the claimed functional limitation. Differences in the driving force of the liquid do not patentably distinguish the structure. Regarding the additional structural limitations (cut-section, plate protrusion member, sealing member, and plate receptor configuration), Applicant argues that Piatetsky does not disclose these exact features. However, Logel et al. teaches projection portions and sealing skirt structures used to secure and seal components in liquid-containing assemblies (Col. 6, Lines 7–16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate known sealing and projection configurations, such as those taught by Logel et al., into the refillable brush body of Piatetsky to improve sealing, manufacturability, and component retention. The combination merely applies known sealing and projection techniques to a known liquid-containing brush device, yielding predictable results. In response to Applicant’s argument that the rejection lacks articulated reasoning is not persuasive. The rejection sets forth that Piatetsky teaches a liquid-containing brush having internal storage and fluid communication through bristles, and that Logel et al. teaches projection and sealing structures suitable for securing and sealing liquid-containing components. The rationale for combination is to improve sealing integrity and structural attachment in a refillable liquid applicator device. Such reasoning is supported by established principles that combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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. /RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 2/17/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 29, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599215
HAIR CLIP CONVERTIBLE COMB
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589020
CURETTE TOOL AND NAIL CARE METHOD USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588745
ROLLER STRUCTURE WITH ADJUSTABLE DIAMETER AND HAIR-TANGLING PREVENTION FUNCTION, AND HAIR CURLER THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588724
HAIR WEFT AND PREPARATION PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569056
SPIRAL COSMETIC APPLICATOR WITH DOWNWARD FACING MICROCOMBS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 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
55%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+25.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1194 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month