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 .
2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments, the previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein.
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 2-10 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (GB 799536 A) in view of Franz (DE 10242937a1) in view of Forbes (US 2021/0393024).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson discloses (Fig. 1-3) a rotary brush assembly (Pg. 1, lines 11-12) comprising: a support drum (The four segments [1] and the end plates [5, 6]) rotatable about an axis (See annotated Fig. 1 below; Pg. 2, lines 31-34; Pg. 1, lines 40-41; The square aperture [2] is intended to receive a drive shaft) and having an outer surface centered on the axis (Annotated Fig. 1); a brush band (11) wrapped helically around the drum (Fig. 1; Pg. 1, lines 34-38) at an angle to the axis (Annotated Fig. 1) and secured to the surface of drum (Pg. 2, lines 60-64; The brush band is fixed by anchorages [12, 13]); and an array of bristles (9) fixed in (they are fixed in the space inside a turn of the brush band) and projecting radially from the brush band (Pg. 2, lines 70-75), each bristle being formed by one leg of a U-shaped strand having two legs each forming a respective bristle and a bight extending between radial inner ends of the respective bristles and lying between the brush band and the outer surface (Pg. 2, lines 70-75).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Wilson)
However, Wilson fails to explicitly disclose the measure of the angle of the brush band wrapped helically around the drum.
Nevertheless, Wilson shows in the drawings wherein the measure of the angle is within the range of 60° to 90° (See annotated Fig. 1).
Accordingly, because Wilson fails to disclose a specific measure for the angle, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try setting the angle to between 60° and 90°, as shown in the drawings of Wilson, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Wilson fails to explicitly disclose the bristles each extending from the respective inner end radially outward through a respective hole in the band AND an injection molded plastic support drum AND a brush band formed as a plastic textile strip.
Franz teaches a rotary brush, wherein the bristles (Item 40) each extending from the respective inner end radially outward through a respective hole (Item 58) in the band (Item 50; Figures 3a and 3c). 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 mounting of Wilson to include the through holes as taught by Franz. Such a modification is discussed in Paragraphs 2-7 as being a known method for suitably holding the bristles in place without the bristles slipping and becoming uneven (Franz Paragraph 7 specifically).
Forbes teaches a brush assembly wherein an injection molded plastic support drum AND a brush band formed as a plastic textile strip (Paragraphs 13, 39, 73, 81, and 99). 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 material of the drum and brush band to be plastic as taught by Forbes. Such a modification is viewed as a change in material, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Plastic is a common material used for manufacturing the drum as well as for bristles and fabric tuft portions of the bristles. Forbes give a good example of these materials in use. The selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 16. Wilson further discloses wherein a longitudinal extension of the brush band and the axis of the support drum form an acute angle of 60° to less than 90° (Wilson See “Angle” in annotated Fig. 1) for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 3, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 16. Wilson further discloses wherein the brush band is wound in more than one turn about the axis of the support drum (Wilson Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 3. Wilson further discloses wherein the brush band is wound around the support drum in a helix (Wilson Fig. 1; Pg. 1, lines 34-38) centered on the axis.
Regarding claim 5, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 4. Wilson further discloses wherein the brush band is wound at a uniform angle helically around the axis of the support drum with bristles of the array extending generally radially of the axis (Wilson Fig. 1; Pg. 2, lines 59-60, in order for the helical groove to have “substantially equally spaced turns”, the turns of the helical groove must be at uniform angle, wherein the brush band is wound in the grooves; Pg. 2, lines 73-75, the bristles are held in a position of “approximately radial projection”).
Regarding claim 6, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 4. Wilson further discloses wherein the support drum is formed with a radially outwardly open groove (10) holding the brush band Wilson (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 6. Wilson further discloses wherein the brush band fits snugly without play in the groove (Wilson Pg. 2, lines 60-22, the brush band is “wound tightly into this groove”; Pg. 2, lines 71-73, “the bristle bights are drawn tightly into the groove”; the brush band and bristle bights fit snugly within the groove).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 6. Wilson further discloses wherein the groove has walls extending radially outward from the outer surface of the support drum (Wilson Annotated Fig. 1; Pg. 2, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 16. Wilson further discloses wherein the brush band is fixed at least at points to the support drum (the brush band is fixed at the anchorages [12, 13]; Pg. 3, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 10, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 9. Wilson further discloses wherein the brush band is mechanically and/or adhesively secured to the support drum (The anchorage [12] is a screw and the anchorages [13] are clamping plates retained by screws; Pg. 2, lines 64-69).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (GB 799536 A) in view of Franz (DE 10242937a1) in view of Forbes (US 2021/0393024) in view of Montabaur (DE 102017110842 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 2.
However, Wilson fails to disclose a stop that engages the bristle array when rotating about the axis.
Nevertheless, Montabaur teaches (Fig. 1-3) a brush assembly (3) with a rotatable support (11), a brush band (4), and an array of bristles (5). Montabaur further teaches a stop (8) that engages the array of bristles as they rotate to elastically deflect the bristles and build up stored kinetic energy that is released after the bristles pass the stop and spring back to their original position creating a large impact on a surface of a workpiece (Para. 0022, lines 1-8).
Accordingly, because Montabaur and Wilson both pertain to the art of brushes, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the brush assembly of Wilson to provide a stop, as taught by Montabaur, as it would facilitate elastic deformation of the bristles, thereby storing and releasing kinetic energy to create an impact on the surface of a workpiece in an attempt to improve a brushing or cleaning effect.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (GB 799536 A) in view of Franz (DE 10242937a1) in view of Forbes (US 2021/0393024) in view of Raymakers et al. (WO 2010151117 A1), hereinafter Raymakers.
Regarding claim 13, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 16. Wilson also discloses wherein the brush assembly has a square-section axial aperture (2) for attaching to a drive shaft of a rotary brush tool (Pg. 1, lines 27-30; In particular, the rotary brush tool is a “sweeper collector”).
However, Wilson fails to disclose the structure of the rotary brush tool. Specifically, Wilson fails to disclose a housing and a drive.
Nevertheless, Raymakers teaches (Fig. 1) a rotary brush tool (1) comprising a brush (9) with an array of bristles (13) forming a helix. The rotary brush tool has a housing (3 and 15) wherein a portion of the housing provides a handle (3) that supports a motor/battery (5), and wherein another portion of the housing provides a protective cap (15) to prevent debris from being flung in all directions (Pg. 9, lines 29-31).
Accordingly, because Wilson suggests that the brush assembly should be attached to a drive shaft of a rotary brush tool, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the brush assembly of Wilson to a motor, as taught by Raymakers, to achieve the predictable result of driving the brush assembly. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a housing, as taught by Raymakers, to support the motor and act as a protective cap that could prevent debris from being flung in all directions and help maintain a clean workspace.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (GB 799536 A) in view of Franz (DE 10242937a1) in view of Forbes (US 2021/0393024) in view of Goff (US 20160220086 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 16, where the bristles of the array extend obliquely to the axis of the support drum (See annotated Fig. 1).
However, Wilson fails to explicitly disclose a method of working a surface of a workpiece where the bristles of the array engage the surface at successively offset locations.
Nevertheless, Goff teaches it is well-known to use a brush assembly (42) similar to Wilson (See Fig. 1b-2) to work the surface of a workpiece by engaging the surface with the brush assembly. Specifically, in Para. 0004, Golf teaches that “the large rotating brushes of the floor maintenance machine directly contact the floor surface” to loosen debris and clean the dirty floor).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the brush assembly of Wilson to engage a surface, as taught by Goff, to achieve the predictable result of cleaning (or working) the surface, wherein the bristles of the array will inherently engage the surface at successively offset locations because of the helix-shaped pattern of the bristle array (the offset locations correspond to where each turn of the bristle array contacts the surface; See MPEP § 2122 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof).
Regarding claim 15, Wilson in view of Franz in view of Forbes disclose the brush assembly according to claim 14. The brush assembly of Wilson that the individual “impingement zones” of each turn of the array of bristles overlap at the edges, because the helix is continuous and therefore the paths of bristles at corresponding ends of adjacent turns will overlap. Further any deflection of the bristles while in contact with the workpiece would cause further displacement and overlap at the edges. Therefore, the combination of Wilson and Goff disclose the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under Wilson in view of Franz 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 Forbes.
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