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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/202 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 03/24/2026, have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections in view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that the applicator, created by the combination below, discloses linear and parallel adjacent brush strips in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting bridge in the vertical direction, as shown in Hartstock-Martin’s Figure 10 (DE 202017100134 U1) and that said connecting bridge is spaced from the second ends and from the first ends of the applicator, as shown in Bickford's Annotated Figure 4 (US 20120199158 A1).
Alternatively, the connecting bridge (50) taught by Bickford can be interpreted as the structure defined in Bickford's Annotated Figure 4, #2; wherein the adjacent branches (30 and 40) would be parallel in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting bridge in the vertical direction.
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(s) 1-16 is/are 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 “and parallel along respective connecting junctions between the two adjacent brush strips and the connecting bridge”; there is a lack of antecedent basis for the terms “connecting junctions” in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “wherein a distance from a center P of a respective connecting junction between the connecting bridge and each corresponding brush strip of the at least two brush strips to the first end of each brush strip is L1, a distance from the junction P to the second end of each brush strip is L2, and L2 is less than or equal to L1”; It is unclear if a center P is the center point of the bridge or the center of an additional structure, such as a connecting junction between the connecting bridge and each corresponding brush strip. For the purpose of Examination the location of the center P is interpreted to be the center of the bridge.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 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.
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, 3-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartstock-Martin (DE 202017100134 U1) in view of Bickford (US 20120199158 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hartstock-Martin discloses an applicator (Figures 7-11), comprising a brush handle (8) and at least two branches (see that two adjacent leaf spring elements 4 form a branch, each branch comprises at least two brush strips, as shown in Annotated Figure 9 below), wherein inner walls (5) of the at least two branches enclose a cavity (space in between the branches/leaf spring elements); each of the at least two branches comprises at least two brush strips (Annotated Figure 9); first ends of the at least two brush strips are fixedly connected to the brush handle (connected at the proximal end portion 3); second ends of the at least two brush strips are free ends (since their top surfaces are free, not connected to any additional element); two adjacent brush strips in each of the at least two branches are fixedly connected through a connecting bridge (distal end part 2); and protrusions (7) are respectively arranged on the at least two brush strips (see Figures 7-10 and the second embodiment in page 10). Wherein the connecting bridge (2) is configured such that two adjacent brush strips (Annotated Figure 9), of the at least two brush strips, are both linear and parallel along respective connecting junctions between the two adjacent brush strips and the connecting bridge (since as best understood, the direction claimed, i.e. “along respective connecting junctions between the two adjacent brush strips and the connecting bridge”, is the direction of the longitudinal axis the connecting bridge in the vertical direction). The Examiner notes that the two adjacent brush strips (Annotated Figure 9) are both linear and parallel in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting bridge in the vertical direction, as shown in Figure 10, where a cross-section of the connecting junctions between the two adjacent brush strips and the connecting bridge is shown.
However, Hartstock-Martin fails to specifically disclose “wherein the connecting bridge is spaced from the second ends and from the first ends such that a first gap is formed between the second ends and the connecting bridge and a second gap is formed between the first ends and the connecting bridge”.
Bickford discloses an applicator (Figure 4, Abstract), comprising a brush handle (12) and at least two branches (30 and 40), wherein inner walls (5) of the at least two branches enclose a cavity (space 48 in between the branches); first ends of the at least two branches are fixedly connected to the brush handle (connected at the base 26); second ends of the at least two branches are free ends (since their top surfaces are free, not connected to any additional element; see Figure 4); two adjacent branches of the at least two branches are fixedly connected through a connecting bridge (50); and protrusions (38) are respectively arranged on the at least two branches (see Figure 4 and [0027]). Wherein the connecting bridge (50) is spaced from the second ends and from the first ends such that a first gap is formed between the second ends and the connecting bridge and a second gap is formed between the first ends and the connecting bridge (Bickford’s Annotated Figure 4 below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Hartstock-Martin’s applicator in order to make it comprising the connecting bridge spaced from the second ends and from the first ends, as taught by Bickford, since such modification would create a structure that stabilizes the position of the second end of the at least two branches as the applicator is pulled or pushed through the wiper opening; additionally, the bridge 50 avoids the excess cosmetic build-up that is typically found on the free end of conventional applicators ([0027]).
The Examiner notes that the applicator, created by the combination above, discloses linear and parallel adjacent brush strips in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting bridge in the vertical direction, as shown in Hartstock-Martin’s Figure 10 and that said connecting bridge is spaced from the second ends and from the first ends of the applicator, as shown in Bickford's Annotated Figure 4, #1.
Alternatively, the connecting bridge (50) taught by Bickford can be interpreted as the structure defined in Bickford's Annotated Figure 4, #2; wherein the adjacent branches (30 and 40) would be parallel in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting bridge in the vertical direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Hartstock-Martin’s applicator in order to make it comprising the two adjacent brush strips being both linear and parallel in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting bridge in the vertical direction, since such modification would be a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed two adjacent brush strips was significant (MPEP 2144).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Hartstock-Martin’s Annotated Figure 9.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
502
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Bickford's Annotated Figure 4.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
860
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Annotated Figure 4, #2.)]
Regarding claim 3, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hartstock-Martin discloses wherein each brush strip of the at least two brush strips comprises an outer surface (outer surface where protrusions 7 are located, see annotated Figure 9 above) and an inner surface (5), wherein the outer surface and the inner surface are opposite to each other (Figure 9), the protrusions (7) are arranged on outer surfaces of the at least two brush strips, and inner surfaces (5) of the at least two brush strips compose the inner walls and enclose the cavity (space in between the branches/leaf spring elements).
Regarding claim 4, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hartstock-Martin discloses wherein a longitudinal section of the outer surface of each brush strip is a wave-shaped structure (as shown in Figure 8 the longitudinal section of the outer surface of the brush strip is wave-shape).
Regarding claim 5, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hartstock-Martin discloses wherein the longitudinal section of the outer surface of each brush strip is a single-peak structure (since the outer surface of each brush strip forms a single peak at the central portion, where the central protrusion at the location of axis A defined a peak; see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hartstock-Martin discloses wherein the single-peak structure, the dual-peak structure or the multi-peak structure is a symmetrical peak (since it the defines a symmetrical peak at the center of the outer surface of the brush strips where axis A is shown in Figure 8).
Regarding claims 7 and 11-13, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hartstock-Martin discloses wherein the inner surfaces (5) of the at least two brush strips are located at a same side of a cylindrical space or a polyhedral space; and an upper bottom surface, a lower bottom surface and any transverse section parallel to the upper bottom surface in the polyhedral space are regular polygons of a same structure (since as shown in Figures 8, the space in between brush strips is a polyhedral space and as shown in Figure 1,0 a transverse section parallel to the upper bottom surface in the polyhedral space is a regular polygon).
PNG
media_image4.png
500
982
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Bickford’s Annotated Figure 4 #2. )]Regarding claim 9, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Bickford discloses wherein a distance from a center P of a respective connecting junction between the connecting bridge and each corresponding brush strip of the at least two brush strips to the first end of each brush strip is L1, a distance from the junction P to the second end of each brush strip is L2, and L2 is less than or equal to L1. The Examiner notes that as best understood, the location of P is interpreted to be the center of the bridge. (see Bickford’s Annotated Figure 4 #2, below).
Regarding claim 10, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hartstock-Martin discloses wherein one row of the protrusions is arranged on each brush strip, each protrusion of the protrusions comprises a root and a head, the root of each protrusion is connected to the outer surface of each brush strip, the head of each protrusion extends outward along a radial direction of each brush strip, the head of each protrusion serves as a free end, each protrusion is a truncated cone shaped structure, and a diameter of the root is greater than a diameter of the head (see cone shaped protrusions 7 shown in Figure 8).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartstock-Martin in view of Bickford, further in view of Habatjou (US 20050249539 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford fail to specifically disclose “wherein the second ends of the at least two brush strips extend straight along a central axis of the brush handle toward a direction away from the brush handle”.
Habatjou discloses an applicator (Figure 3), comprising a brush handle (14) and at least two branches (17), wherein inner walls of the at least two branches enclose a cavity (space in between branches as shown I Figure 2); each of the at least two branches comprises at least two brush strips (20); first ends of the at least two brush strips are fixedly connected to the brush handle (14); and protrusions (22) are respectively arranged on the at least two brush strips (20) (Figures 2-3 and [0083]-[0084]). Wherein the second ends of the at least two brush strips (20) extend straight along a central axis of the brush handle toward a direction away from the brush handle (14) (see Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Hartstock-Martin/Bickford’s applicator to make the second ends of the at least two brush strips extending straight along a central axis of the brush handle toward a direction away from the brush handle, since such modification would be matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed second ends of the at least two brush strips were significant (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartstock-Martin in view of Castex (US 20230022223 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 14-16, Hartstock-Martin and Bickford fail to disclose “wherein the outer surface of each brush strip and the inner surface of each brush strip have a same shape, and the outer surface of each brush strip is parallel to the inner surface of each brush strip”.
Castex discloses an applicator (Figure 1), comprising a brush handle (2) and at least two branches (41), wherein inner walls (6) of the at least two branches enclose a cavity (5); each of the at least two branches comprises at least two brush strips (brush strips present on the outer surface 7); first ends of the at least two brush strips are fixedly connected to the brush handle (connected at the proximal end portion shown in Figure 3); second ends of the at least two brush strips are free ends (as shown in Figure 2); and protrusions (8) are respectively arranged on the at least two brush strips (see Figures 2). See additionally [0051]-[0054]. Castex discloses wherein the outer surface of each brush strip and the inner surface of each brush strip have a same shape, and the outer surface of each brush strip is parallel to the inner surface of each brush strip (since as shown in Figure 3 these shapes are the opposite bases of a trapezoid which are parallel along the direction of the longitudinal axis of the applicator). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Hartstock-Martin/Bickford’s applicator to make the outer surface of each brush strip and the inner surface of each brush strip having the same shape and parallel to each other, as taught by Castex, since such modification would be a simple matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed outer surface and inner surfaces were significant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. 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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights