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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein, and are made final.
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 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 1,762,182) in view of Sargent (US 1,060,029).
Regarding claim 14, Mayer discloses a fibrillous abrasive crevice cleaner apparatus comprising:
a twisted multistrand handle (Items 5 and 6) extending from a distal end to a proximal end along a longitudinal axis ; and,
a continuous fibrillous mass (Item 2) fixedly coupled about the distal end of the twisted multistrand handle, such that the fibrillous mass forms a knot distal to the proximal end of the twisted multistrand handle, and a proximal end of the fibrillous mass is captured between the twisted multistrand handle, such the fibrillous mass resists decoupling from the twisted multistrand handle
Mayer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the knot is formed by cinched tag ends of the fibrillous mass wrapped around fold ends of the twisted multistrand handle, and wherein twisting the fold ends to form the twisted multistrand handle mechanically secures the fibrillous mass to the handle to resist decoupling.
Sargent teaches a cleaning apparatus wherein the knot (Item 19) is formed by cinched tag ends of the fibrillous mass wrapped around fold ends of the twisted multistrand handle, and wherein twisting the fold ends to form the twisted multistrand handle mechanically secures the fibrillous mass to the handle to resist decoupling (Page 1 Lines 103-Page 2 Lines19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mayer to have a knot as taught by Sargent at its end. Such a modification would ensure all surfaces are covered by a fibrillous mass and the surface intended to be cleaned wouldn’’t be come scratched (Sargent Page 1 Lines 15-35) .
Regarding claim 16, Mayer in view of Sargent disclose the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the twisted multistrand handle is adjustable (Mayer discusses bending the metal wires to form a cylindrical. It is known that these wire type fabrications can be bent (adjusted) since they are metallic wires, and they can retail their shape once bent).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 1,762,182) in view of Sargent (US 1,060,029) in view of Beck (US 2016/0221050).
Regarding claim 15, Mayer in view of Sargent disclose the apparatus of claim 14. Mayer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the twisted multistrand handle includes a lumen that houses a cavity used to store a magnetic tip.
Beck teaches a cleaning apparatus wherein the handle includes a lumen that houses a cavity used to store a magnetic tip (Paragraph 59-60). 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 handle of Mayer to include the magnet as taught by Beck. Such a modification would allow a the tool to attract metallic objects that could possibly be left behind (Beck Paragraph 59).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 1,762,182) in view of Sargent (US 1,060,029) in view of Borasi (US 2017/0258214).
Regarding claim 17, Mayer in view of Sargent disclose the apparatus of claim 16. Mayer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the twisted multistrand handle couples to a ball joint.
Borasi teaches a cleaning apparatus wherein the twisted multistrand handle couples to a ball joint (Item 104 Paragraph 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mayer to include the ball and socket joint of Borasi. Twisted wire brushes can be used to clean many different items from gun barrels, to tubes, and to medical equipment (Borasi Paragraph 3). Including a ball and socket joint would allow for a level of rotation from the longitudinal axis that might allow for the cleaning apparatus to clean articles that would otherwise be inaccessible.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 1,762,182) in view of Sargent (US 1,060,029) in view of Satten (US 4,966,481).
Regarding claim 18, Mayer in view of Sargent disclose the apparatus of claim 14. Mayer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the twisted multistrand handle includes a lumen that houses a cavity used to store fluid and an ejection mechanism used to eject the fluid.
Satten teaches a cleaning apparatus wherein the handle (Item 12) includes a lumen that houses a cavity (Item 15) used to store fluid and an ejection mechanism (Item 13) used to eject the fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mayer to include a fluid ejection mechanism for the cleaning apparatus as taught by Satten. It is known in the art that a cleaning solution can increase the effectiveness for cleaning and polishing. Thus decreasing the amount of work the user has to exert on the cleaning apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, Mayer in view of Sargent in view of Satten disclose the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the ejection mechanism comprises a one-way valve (Satten Item 23).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 1,762,182) in view of Sargent (US 1,060,029) in view of Lalonde (US 5,253,386).
Regarding claim 20, Mayer in view of Sargent disclose the apparatus of claim 14. Mayer fails to explicitly disclose wherein a second abrasive tip formed from the fibrillous mass at the proximal end of the twisted multi strand handle.
Lalonde teaches a cleaning apparatus wherein a second abrasive tip formed from the fibrillous mass at the proximal end of the twisted multi strand handle (Figure 1, Items 16 and 17 on each end of 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mayer to include a second abrasive article to the tool of Mayer. Such a modification would allow for the cleaning apparatus to have twice as long of a life. Since the cleaning apparatus can be turned around after the first end is either deformed, or entangled with dirt, oil, or debris that decreases the abrasive material ability to scrub.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102- Mayer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sargent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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