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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/6/25 has been entered.
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, 5-11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (PGPub 20160128457) in view of Gross (EP3804560).
Lim teaches a brush comprising a gripping portion (104) to be grasped by a user’s hand. There is a housing seat (201, 310) associated with the gripping portion to house an application body (102) comprising a plurality of spreading elements (paragraph 0018).
With regards to claim 3, the housing seat is formed on the gripping portion (figure 5a).
With regards to claim 5, the application body is located together with the gripping portion (secured within the seat).
With regards to claim 6, the housing seat has an undercut (figure 2a, 5a) configured to allow the retention of the application body in the seat.
With regards to claim 7, the spreading elements have a first end associated with a supporting element (102) and a second free end opposite the first end (free ends of bristles). The supporting element is configured to fit and measure into the undercut.
With regards to claim 8, the spreading elements have a first end associated with the housing seat (end of bristles that fit within 102) and a second free end opposite the first end.
With regards to claim 9, the applicator body is removable (paragraph 0062).
With regards to claim 10, the applicator body comprises an interlocking portion (swivel connection) opposite the spreading elements and shaped to fit within by interlocking in the housing seat.
With regards to claim 11, interlocking portion has a shape complementary to the housing seat (the ball joint fits within a ball shaped opening; figure 4).
With regards to claim 15, the application body has a shape complementary to the seat (the ball joint fits within a ball shaped opening; figure 4).
With regards to claim 16, the spreading elements are sealed to the supporting element (paragraph 0037).
With regards to claim 1, Lim teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the spreading elements, gripping portion and application body are all made from biopolymers such as PET. Gross teaches a make-up brush (paragraph 0010) wherein all the components of the brush (paragraph 0006-0008) are made from bio-based materials (paragraph 0020). The material used can include a bio-PET (paragraph 0068; which is a biopolymer PET) The components of the brush are made from the same material (paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim so that the spreading elements, gripping portion and applicator body are all made from the same biopolymer such as PET as taught by Gross to reduce the amount of energy required for the production as well as a quantity of plastic waste. Further, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 8702965 (‘965) in view of Gross (‘560).
‘965 teaches a brush comprising a gripping portion (12) to be grasped by a user’s hand. There is a housing seat (22) associated with the gripping portion to house an application body (14) comprising a plurality of spreading elements (16).
With regards to claim 3, the housing seat is formed on the gripping portion (figure 2).
With regards to claim 5, the application body is located together with the gripping portion (figure 2).
With regards to claim 6, the housing seat has an undercut (26) configured to allow the retention of the application body in the seat.
With regards to claim 7, the spreading elements have a first end associated with a supporting element (14, 30) and a second free end opposite the first end (free ends of bristles). The supporting element is configured to fit and measure into the undercut.
With regards to claim 8, the spreading elements have a first end associated with the housing seat (end of bristles that fit within 30) and a second free end opposite the first end.
With regards to claim 9, the applicator body is removable (moves between figure 1 and 2).
With regards to claim 10, the applicator body comprises an interlocking portion (14) opposite the spreading elements and shaped to fit by interlocking in the housing seat.
With regards to claim 11, interlocking portion has a shape complementary to the housing seat (figure 2 shows that 14 fits within 12).
With regards to claim 12, the application body is movable due to external force being applied by a user, between a configuration of normal use wherein the spreading elements are protruding from the housing seat (figure 2) and a protecting configuration when the spreading elements are housed in the housing seat with the interlocking portion protruding from the seat (figure 1).
With regards to claim 13, the interlocking portion has a decorative element (anything can be considered decorative; shape of the portion being rounded is considered decorative) to overhang from the housing seat.
With regards to claim 15, the application body has a shape complementary to the seat (figure 2).
With regards to claim 16, the spreading elements are sealed to the supporting element (must be sealed in order to securely attach the bristles to the supporting element).
With regards to claim 1, ‘965 teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the spreading elements, gripping portion and application body are all made from biopolymers such as PET. Gross teaches a make-up brush (paragraph 0010) wherein all the components of the brush (paragraph 0006-0008) are made from bio-based materials (paragraph 0020). The material used can include a bio-PET (paragraph 0068; which is a biopolymer PET) The components of the brush are made from the same material (paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim so that the spreading elements, gripping portion and applicator body are all made from the same biopolymer such as PET as taught by Gross to reduce the amount of energy required for the production as well as a quantity of plastic waste. Further, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references would lead to different biopolymers for the handle and bristles. In response, paragraph 0068-0069 of Gross teaches that the body, anchor and bristles would all be made from the biopolymer PET. Further stating that all the components of the single-material brush are made from the same material component to allow for the materials to form a better connection during processing. Thus, as claimed, the spreading elements and the gripping portion are made from the same material (bio-PET), regardless if it is rigid or flexible, it is still the same material. Gross further teaches the using a biopolymer material since it is a recyclable material, which allows for a recycling options after use, which is the motivation for combining Lim and DE ‘965 with Gross.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723