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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments and the arguments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) in view of Braxmeier (DE102009029926A1), as discussed below.
In regards to the declaration from Rachel Liang, the declaration is not found persuasive. When looking at the test details, there is a tensile pull test to ensure the wire bristles are retained up to 89N. The test data shows that forces over 89N are subject to failure. The claim requires "wherein the press machine is further configured to mechanically couple the plurality of bristles to the brush head such that a strength and durability of the plurality of bristles is not compromised when a force of greater than about 89 Newtons is applied." Thus the test data does not support the claim. The claim would need to recite "when a force LESS THAN about 89 N is applied" for the test data to be applicable. If Applicant wants the Examiner to review the CSA document, please submit a copy since the Examiner has not been able to obtain a copy.
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 1-5, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) in view of Braxmeier (DE102009029926A1).
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a method for wire bristle tuft attachment, comprising:
clamping a brush head of a grill brush using a fixture (Item O Page 3 Line 72-129);
arranging a plurality of bristles to form a bristle grouping using a terminal (referred to as a staple), wherein the plurality of bristles are adjacent and substantially parallel to one another (Page 3 Line 19-42) ;
inserting the terminal and the plurality of bristles into a recess in the brush head (Figure 21); and
pressing the terminal into the recess using a press machine under a controlled force to deform the terminal into a bend confined within the recess (Page 3 Line 19-21).
Without arguing what is considered an irregular bend, and what causes an irregular bend, Young fails to explicitly disclose the terminal with an irregular bend, engaging a wall of the recess to mechanically interlock the terminal without penetrating through the head.
White teaches a brush wherein the terminal with an irregular bend, engaging a wall of the recess to mechanically interlock the terminal without penetrating through the head (Item c, Figure 2). 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 terminal of Young for the terminal of White. White further discusses in column 2 that this terminal configuration is allowed to tighten across the bristle bundle as it is pressed into the handle. Thus, leading one skilled in the art to the predictable result of the bundle of bristles being properly fastened within the brush head.
Young further fails to explicitly disclose the press machine is further configured to mechanically couple the plurality of bristles to the brush head such that a strength and durability of the plurality of bristles is not compromised when a force of greater than about 89 Newtons is applied .
Braxmeier teaches a brush, and gives an example of how 600-1000N (Paragraph 18) would be beneficial. 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 brush anchoring of Young, such that it can withstand a large pullout force as taught by Braxmeier. Braxmeier discusses a toothbrush with the desire to create the brush body as thin as possible, thus not allowing traditional staples, as they tend to protrude or piece the body. Since the brush of Young and/or White is not concerned with a thickness of the body, it would be obvious to try to arrange a staple to have a pull force well over 300N (half) as encouraged by Braxmeier. Such a modification would ensure the bristles are adequately secured and will not fall out.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising forming a terminal from a wire, wherein the wire has a metal cross-section, and wherein the terminal is made of metal (Young Page 1 Line 10).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising controlling a height of the plurality of bristles based on a vertical displacement of the fixture (Young Page 3 Line 43-71).
Regarding claim 4, 14, and 20, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising controlling a height of the plurality of bristles by controlling a vertical displacement of a head of the press machine (best shown in Young Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising controlling a location of the bristle grouping in the brush head based on controlling at least one of a vertical displacement or a horizontal displacement of the brush head (Young Page 3 Line 83-97).
Regarding claim 11, Young discloses a system for wire bristle tuft attachment, comprising:
a press machine (Figure 1) configured to mechanically couple a plurality of bristles (“tuft” or “bristles”) to a brush head of a grill brush (Item p) by:
inserting a terminal (“staple”) and the plurality of bristles into a recess in the brush head (Figure 21); and
applying, under a controlled force, pressure to the terminal to form deform the terminal into an irregular bend confined within the recess (Item L); and
a fixture (Item o) disposed on the press machine, the fixture configured to clamp and position the brush head during the mechanical coupling of the plurality of bristles to the brush head.(Page 3 Line 19-42 and Line 72-129);
Without arguing what is considered an irregular bend, and what causes an irregular bend, Young fails to explicitly disclose the terminal with an irregular bend, engaging a wall of the recess to mechanically interlock the terminal without penetrating through the head.
White teaches a brush wherein the terminal with an irregular bend, engaging a wall of the recess to mechanically interlock the terminal without penetrating through the head (Item c, Figure 2). 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 terminal of Young for the terminal of White. White further discusses in column 2 that this terminal configuration is allowed to tighten across the bristle bundle as it is pressed into the handle. Thus, leading one skilled in the art to the predictable result of the bundle of bristles being properly fastened within the brush head.
Young further fails to explicitly disclose the press machine is further configured to mechanically couple the plurality of bristles to the brush head such that a strength and durability of the plurality of bristles is not compromised when a force of greater than about 89 Newtons is applied .
Braxmeier teaches a brush, and gives an example of how 600-1000N (Paragraph 18) would be beneficial. 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 brush anchoring of Young, such that it can withstand a large pullout force as taught by Braxmeier. Braxmeier discusses a toothbrush with the desire to create the brush body as thin as possible, thus not allowing traditional staples, as they tend to protrude or piece the body. Since the brush of Young and/or White is not concerned with a thickness of the body, it would be obvious to try to arrange a staple to have a pull force well over 300N (half) as encouraged by Braxmeier. Such a modification would ensure the bristles are adequately secured and will not fall out.
Regarding claim 16, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the press machine is further configured to control the applied force to deform the terminal in the recess of the brush head (the staple would deform based on the force applied to it while its being pressed into the head. There is nothing stopping the staple from deforming in its own direction).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) in view of Braxmeier (DE102009029926A1) in view of Laurence (US 3,425,084).
Regarding claim 7, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1. Young fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brush head is made of polypropylene.
Laurence teaches a brush head made of poly propylene (Column 3 Lines 35-57). 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 brush of Young to be made of plastic material as taught by Laurence. 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). Further Laurence discusses how “directly inserting bristles and metal insert into a solid brush back constructed from a foamed plastic material is most convenient in terms of time and equipment required in comparison with prior art processes and produces an excellent lightweight brush” (Column 3 Lines 19-24).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) in view of Braxmeier (DE102009029926A1) in view of Kaneda (US 6,044,514).
Regarding claim 8, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1. Young fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the recess is about 2.5mm.
Kaneda teaches a brush wherein a diameter of the recess is about 2.5mm (Column 6 Lines 53-62). 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 diameter of the recesses of Young such that they were about 2.5mm (2.4 is about 2.5 mm) as taught by Kaneda. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). The diameter of the recess would depend on the design of the brush, the material of the bristles, and the force they intend to endure.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) in view of Braxmeier (DE102009029926A1) in view of Liu (US 2023/0210247).
Regarding claim 9 and 17, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1. Young fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the terminal is between about 2.2mm to about 2.8mm.
Liu teaches a brush wherein the length of the terminal is between about 2.2mm to about 2.8mm (Paragraph 39). 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 staple of Young to be about 2.2mm to about 2.8mm as taught by Liu. The length of the staple depends on the depth of the hole and the dumber of bristles, and the amount of force the bristles are expected to endure. 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). As discussed in Paragraph 59 of Liu, such a modification can lead to an improvement of surface retention and examples of the parameters in which they considered improved.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 544,201) in view of White (US 47,157) in view of Braxmeier (DE102009029926A1) in view of Gueret (US 6,176,631).
Regarding claim 10 and 18, Young in view of White in view of Braxmeier disclose the method of claim 1. Young fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the terminal is between about 0.7mm to about 0.8mm.
Gueret teaches a brush wherein a diameter of the terminal is between about 0.7mm to about 0.8mm (Column 5 Line 31-39). 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 width of the terminal to be between about 0.7-0.8mm as taught by Gueret. 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). The size shape and design of the terminal is depending on the size of the recess and the amount of force the bristles intend to endure.
Conclusion
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