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 .
Response to Amendment/ Response to Arguments
The drawing objections are withdrawn.
The previous rejections are maintained and are made final.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Schwab in view of Clair Zimmet fails to disclose a plurality of bristles with a through hole, wherein the plurality of bristles are secured to the carrier at least in part by portions of the carrier projecting into the through holes of the plurality of bristles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schwab discloses a hard metal bristle that has a soft material molded around the bristle. Schwab also discusses how the anchoring geometry is not critical and can be any shape (Column 1 Lines 32-34). Clair Zimmet teaches an example of a bristle with a hole there through. If the bristle of Clair Zimmet were to be used in the injection molding, the liquid rubber would naturally find its way into the hole. It is the Examiner’s opinion that a hole being filled with a plastic material is a known mechanical connection. Clair Zimmet simply gives an example of it.
To expedite prosecution, the Examiner reached out to Applicant’s representation to discuss the combination, Michael Chudzinski agreed to the Examiner’s viewpoint, but discussed how Applicant wanted to see the Final rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401).
Regarding claim 1, Schwab discloses a brush comprising:
a carrier (Item 16); and
a plurality of relatively stiff bristles (Item 13) secured to the carrier (Column 1 Lines 22-32),
wherein the plurality of bristles are secured to the carrier at least in part by portions of the carrier project into the base of the bristle of the plurality of bristles (Column 1 Lines 46-Column 2 Line 20),
wherein the carrier is formed of a relatively soft material permitting a range of motion of the bristles by movement of the carrier in response to forces acting on the relatively stiff bristles (Column 1 Lines 22-32).
Schwab fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of bristles comprises a through-hole. Schwab in Column 1 Lines 32-33 discusses “The bristles may be secured to the base in any well-known manner.”
Claire-Zimmet teaches a brush wherein each of the plurality of bristles (Figure 8 Item 30) comprises a through-hole (Item 64) and wherein the plurality of bristles are secured to the carrier at least in part by portions of the carrier project into the through-holes of the plurality of bristles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the mounting means of Schwab for the bristle mounting means and the through hole Claire-Zimmet. Whether the bristle has a bend, comes to a tee, or if it has at least one hole, all are known configurations to adequately retain a bristle within a carrier. Thus leading one of ordinary skill in the art to the predicable result of the bristle being adequately held. Further, the injection of the soft rubber of Schwab would conform to any surface within the mold.
Regarding claim 2, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein the carrier is molded to the bristles (Schwab Column 1 Lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 3 and 20, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein: each of the plurality of bristles comprises a root and a shaft (Schwab Item 17a) that extends upwardly from the root; the root of each of the plurality of bristles comprises a base (Claire-Zimmet Item 60) and a stem (Item 58) that extends upwardly from the base; the base of each of the plurality of bristles extends outwardly beyond the stem; and the through-hole of each of the plurality of bristles is formed in the stem.
Regarding claim 4, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 3, wherein the stem of each of the plurality of bristles comprises an undercut in which the through-hole of each of the plurality of bristles is formed (Clair Zimmet Figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein of each of the plurality of bristles is formed entirely of metal (Schwab (Column 1 Lines 22-32, the bristle is made of steel then over molded).
Regarding claim 18, Schwab discloses a brush comprising:
a carrier (Item 16) formed of a relatively soft material; and
a plurality of relatively stiff bristles (Item 13; (Column 1 Lines 22-32), ) each comprising a shaft (Item 17a) and a root (Item 15, molded portion around Item 17a),
wherein each of the roots of the plurality of bristles define a through-hole receiving a portion of the carrier projecting into the through-hole for securing the bristles with the carrier at least in part by the portions of the carrier projecting into the through-holes. (Column 1 Lines 46-Column 2 Line 20)
Schwab fails to disclose the plurality of bristles define a through-hole
Claire-Zimmet teaches a brush wherein each of the plurality of bristles (Figure 8 Item 30) comprises a through-hole (Item 64) and wherein the plurality of bristles are secured to the carrier at least in part by portions of the carrier project into the through-holes of the plurality of bristles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the mounting means of Schwab for the bristle mounting means and the through hole Claire-Zimmet. Whether the bristle has a bend, comes to a tee, or if it has at least one hole, all are known configurations to adequately retain a bristle within a carrier. Thus leading one of ordinary skill in the art to the predicable result of the bristle being adequately held. Further, the injection of the soft rubber of Schwab would conform to any surface within the mold.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401) in view of SiTech (NPL-U https://www.sitech-corp.com/blog/advantages-capabilities-silicone-rubber/).
Regarding claim 5, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1. Schwab fails to explicitly disclose wherein the carrier is formed of a silicone rubber material. (only discloses rubber)
SiTech teaches the advantages of silicone rubber in devices which contact living tissues (NPL-U paragraph 6 “Silicone rubber is chemically and physiologically inert. This means that silicone rubber will not cause other materials to corrode. This also means living tissues are not as affected by contact with silicone rubber than they are by exposure to other organic polymers. Silicone rubber is also compatible with FDA regulations and can undergo many different sterilization techniques. This allows silicone rubber to be used for applications such as baby bottle nipples and medical devices.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwab to incorporate the teachings of SiTech to provide the carrier formed of silicone rubber. Doing so would allow the brush to be formed of a material which is approved by the FDA for contact with living tissue such as the skin of a user.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401) in view of Watanabe (JP2017080191).
Regarding claim 6, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1. Schwab fails to explicitly disclose wherein the carrier is formed of a material having a Shore A durometer of less than 50.
Watanabe teaches a brush comprising a portion of the body formed of a rubber material (NPL-V page 7, paragraph 4 “Here, the elastomer forming the soft portion 16 of the base portion 15, the upper soft portions 18 and 20, and the elastomer molded body 29 is a polymer molded body exhibiting rubber-like elasticity, and the elastomer resin constituting the elastomer is natural. Rubber (NR), diene rubber, non-diene rubber, thermoplastic elastomer and the like can be used.”) having a Shore A durometer of less than 50 (NPL-V page 7, paragraph 8 “In addition, the elastomer for forming the elastomer for forming the soft portion 16 of the base portion 15, the upper soft portions 18 and 20, and the elastomer molded body 29 has a hardness (Shore A hardness measured in accordance with ASTM D2240 0-100. ) Is preferably 30 or more, more preferably 40 or more, and preferably 80 or less, more preferably 70 or less, more specifically, preferably 30 or more and 80 or less, More preferably, a material of 40 to 70 is preferably used.” Page 8 paragraph 2 “As an elastomer resin for forming the soft portion 16 and the upper soft portions 18 and 20 of the base portion 15 and the elastomer forming the elastomer molded body 29, particularly the elastomer forming the soft portion 16 and the upper soft portions 18 and 20 of the base portion 15. By using such a material, the multi-material projections 14 and 19 can be pressed against the scalp with a pressure that does not damage the scalp and does not hurt. Therefore, it is possible to give an appropriate stimulus, an excellent massage effect is obtained, and in combination with the action of a cleaning agent applied to the scalp and hair as necessary, removal of sebum and washing of pores is possible. It becomes possible to perform efficiently. When the scalp brush 10 is used together with a shampoo or a hair restorer, the soft portion 16 and the upper soft portions 18 and 20 of the base portion 15 and the elastomer molded body 29 are olefins having excellent chemical resistance against these”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwab to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe to provide the carrier formed of a material having a Shore A durometer of less than 50. Doing so would allow carrier to be formed of a rubber material which will not damage the scalp if the carrier comes in contact during use.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401) in view of Pilevsky (US20190191864).
Regarding claim 7, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bristles comprises a root (Claire-Zimmet Item 48) and a shaft (Schwab Item 17a) that extends upwardly from the root. Schwab fails to disclose the shaft has a diameter of at least 1.2 mm.
Pilevsky teaches a brush having bristles (Abstract) with a root (Figure 4 Elements 28 and 26) and a shaft (Figure 4 Element 22) extending upwardly from the root, the shaft has a diameter of at least 1.2 mm (Paragraph 0030). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwab to incorporate the teachings of Pilevsky to provide the shaft having a diameter of at least 1.2 mm. Doing so would allow the shaft to have a diameter increases near the carrier to prevent undesired movement and the accumulation of dirt, oil, and hair product in the area where the bristle is inserted in the carrier.
Regarding claim 8, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet in view of Pilevsky disclose the brush as claimed in claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of bristles comprises a tip formed as a rounded end of the shaft (Schwab Item 17b).
Claims 9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401) in view of Chudzik (US 2009/0188062).
Regarding claim 9, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bristles comprises a root (Claire-Zimmet Item 48) and a shaft (Schwab Item 17a) that extends upwardly from the root, the carrier surrounds the root of each of the plurality of bristles. Schwab fails to explicitly disclose the shaft of each of the plurality of bristles has a length of at least 15 mm.
Chudzik teaches a brush wherein the bristle length is 15mm (Paragraph 93). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the bristle of Schwab to be at least 15 mm as taught by Chudzik. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Chudzik further teaches that the optimal bristle length depends on the users hair (Paragraph 93)
Regarding claim 12, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1. Schwab fails to explicitly disclose a frame comprising a plurality of holes, wherein each of the plurality of bristles extends through a respective hole in the frame.
Chudzik teaches a brush wherein a frame comprising a plurality of holes, wherein each of the plurality of bristles extends through a respective hole in the frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab to include the frame with a plurality of holes as taught by Chudzwik. Such a modification would allow for the bristles to move independently from the frame and make it easier for cleaning (Chudzik Paragraph 16)
Regarding claim 14, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet in view of Chudzik disclose the brush as claimed in claim 12, wherein the carrier is molded to the frame (Chudzik Figure 4 carrier 24 is molded to the inside of frame 40)..
Regarding claim 15, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet in view of Chudzik disclose the brush as claimed in claim 12, further comprising: a body (Chudzik Item 32), wherein the carrier is held between the frame and the body at each of the plurality of bristles (Figures 1,2 ,and 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401) in view of Ito (US20120037176).
Regarding claim 10, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet disclose the brush as claimed in claim 1. Schwab fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of bristles has a flexural modulus of at least 1 GPa or a flexural stiffness of at least 500 N/m.
Ito teaches a comb wherein each of the plurality of bristles has a flexural modulus of at least 1 GPa (Paragraph 78-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab to include the bending/flexural modulus as taught by Ito. Such a modification would ensure the bristle was rigid enough to adequately move through a user’s hair without needing time to rebound from the deformation (Ito Paragraph 76-77)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2027884) in view of Clair Zimmet (US 2008/0178401) in view of Chudzik (US 2009/0188062) in view of Binnington (US20180206626).
Regarding claim 13, Schwab in view of Claire-Zimmet in view of Chudzik disclose the brush as claimed in claim 12, wherein the frame is hyperbolic paraboloidic in shape.
Binnington teaches a hair brush (Abstract) wherein the frame is hyperbolic paraboloidic in shape (Paragraph 0057 ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwab to incorporate the teachings of Binnington to provide a frame being a hyperbolic paraboloid shape. Doing so would allow the brush to be contoured to fit against the palm of a user’s cupped hand.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, and 19 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 closest prior art is GB296,639 showing bristles that have holes, but none of which can be considered orthogonal to each other.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights