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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 and 10 – 12. Claims 2 – 9 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the housing can house a battery” in lines 6 – 7. The limitation is vague in that it is unclear if the limitation is required or optional. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as optional or not required.
Claims 10 – 11 are further rejected as dependents of base claim 1.
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.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fry et al. (U. S. Patent No. 4,724,563) in view of Yun (KR-30-0869640) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Independent Claim 12, Fry teaches a facial brush (scrub brush apparatus, 10) and a cradle system (cradle, 86; Fig. 3) comprising, an electrically powered facial brush (10) having at least one moving part (motor, 28) that is driven by electrical power and that has a housing (housing, 12), a grip portion (handle member, 14) and a head portion (head portion, 24), the head portion (24) having at least one brush electrical contact (78N and P; Fig. 1); a cradle (86) having a base (floor, 92) and having a cord (84; Fig. 3) for connecting to an external electrical power supply source (Fig. 3), the cradle (86) having a support (90L and R) that extends upward from the base (92) and at least one cradle electrical contact (108R and L; Fig. 5) above the base (92), each of the at least one cradle electrical contact (108R and L) and the at least one brush electrical contact (78N and P; Fig. 1) being positioned so that when the head portion (24) of the facial brush (10) is supported by the cradle (86)the at least one cradle electrical contact and the at least one brush electrical contact engage each other for transmitting electrical power from the cradle to the facial brush (Col. 6, lines 47 – 69), wherein the cradle (86) can support the facial brush (10) in a position in which the facial brush (10) is suspended (Fig. 3).
Fry does not teach the cradle having a support that extends vertically upward from the base to be perpendicular from the flat surface and a loop that extends outward from the support parallel with the flat surface so that the grip portion can pass through the loop to position the head portion on the loop allowing the facial brush to hang from the loop.
PNG
media_image1.png
553
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yun, however, teaches an analogous base unit, comprising a cradle (Annotated Fig. 1.1) and a base unit (Annotated Fig. 1.1), the cradle having a support (Annotated Fig. 1.1) that extends vertically upward from the base (Annotated Fig. 1.1) to be perpendicular from the flat surface (Annotated Fig. 1.1) and a loop (Annotated Fig. 1.1) that extends outward from the support (Annotated Fig. 1.1) parallel with the flat surface (Annotated Fig. 1.1) so that the grip portion can pass through the loop (Annotated Fig. 1.1) to position the head portion on the loop allowing the facial brush to hang from the loop (the loop of Yun allows for a grip portion of a facial brush to be cradled in the loop and positions the head portion on the loop allowing the brush to hang from the loop).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carlucci to further include the cradle has a base, a support that extends upward from the base, and a loop that extends outward from the support, as taught by Yun, to provide a device that is easier to dry.
Yun does not teach the loop extending above the base; however; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yun to further include the loop extending above the base, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, Fry as modified by Yun provides a system wherein the head portion of the facial brush is supported by the cradle and further allowing the grip portion to extend over the base and has a vertical space between the base and the grip portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: Although Carlucci in view of Yun teach a facial brush and cradle system, the reference alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest or make obvious the cradle having one or more cradle electrical contacts that extend through an interior of the loop and being positioned so that when the facial brush hangs on the cradle the one or more cradle electrical contacts and the one or more brush electrical contacts engage each other to conduct electrical current from the one or more cradle electrical contacts to the one or more brush electrical contacts to charge the battery, and wherein the base is free of electrical contacts.
Fry further teaches the cradle having one or more cradle electrical contacts, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to modify the device of Carlucci to result in the invention of the instant application.
Claims 10 – 11 would further be allowed as dependents of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated April 16, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive; therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Yun does not teach the loop extending above the base”.
Although Yun does not teach the base located below the loop, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciated that a modification to provide the base under the loop would be a simple rearrangement of parts and is not novel.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights