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 .
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.
Claims 2-19 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.
In regard to claims 2-19, each claim recites “The process” while claim 1 introduces “A method.” Therefore, the use of “The process” lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted as --The method-- for purposes of examination.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the step of soaking" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --a step of soaking--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the step of drying" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --a step of drying--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the step of agitating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --a step of agitating--.
The term “mild air output” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mild air output” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what sort of “air output” would be considered to be “mild.” Therefore, if the claim were allowed to issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation so as to be capable of avoiding infringement.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the tincture solution" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim is viewed to depend on --claim 2-- instead of “claim 12.”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taran et al. (“Portable ozone sterilization device with mechanical and ultrasonic cleaning units for dentistry” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 084105 (2020); hereinafter “Taran”) in view of American Academy of Dermatology (“How to Clean Your Makeup Brushes.” The Wayback Machine. Archived webpage captured 4 April 2020; hereinafter “AAD”).
In regard to claim 1, Taran discloses a portable ozone sterilization device for use with dental tools wherein the dental tools are contacted with ozone which has been injected into water (i.e. an aqueous ozone solution) to sterilize the parts and components thereon. See Section C on page 4.
Taran is silent in regard to wherein makeup brushes are sterilized in the device.
AAD teaches that makeup brushes can have harmful bacteria which lingers in the brush. Thus, it is necessary to clean one’s makeup brushes regularly. See page 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the ozonated water of Taran to sterilize makeup brushes as ADD teaches that makeup brushes can potentially be contaminated with bacteria. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
In regard to claim 3, Taran does not explicitly disclose a step of drying.
AAD discloses wherein the makeup brushes are squeezed with a dry paper towel and laid flat with the bristles hanging off the edge of the counter to allow the brushes to dry after cleaning. See steps 6 and 7 on page 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the drying step of ADD with the above combined invention for the purpose of returning the brushes to a dry state in order to be ready for subsequent use.
In regard to claim 9, Taran does not explicitly disclose wherein the makeup brush is rinsed before being contacted by the aqueous ozone solution.
AAD discloses wherein the makeup brushes are first rinsed with running lukewarm water to remove residual makeup on the brushes prior to any other cleaning steps. See Step 1 on page 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rinsing step of ADD with the above combined invention for the purpose of removing residual makeup from the brushes prior to subsequent cleaning and sterilization steps.
In regard to claim 10, Taran does not explicitly disclose wherein the makeup brush is rinsed after being contacted by the aqueous ozone solution.
AAD discloses wherein the makeup brushes are rinsed with running water to remove cleaning solution on the brushes after application. See Steps 4 and 5 on page 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rinsing steps of ADD with the above combined invention for the purpose of removing residual cleaning solutions from the brushes during cleaning and sterilization of the brushes.
In regard to claim 11, Taran discloses wherein the aqueous ozone solution is generated by infusing ozone into water as it is taught that the ozone is produced and then injected into water. See lines 1-4 of Section C on page 4.
In regard to claims 16-18, Taran discloses wherein supply and discharge nozzles are used for supplying the water-ozone solution to the instruments during sterilization which is viewed to be tantamount to bother wherein the aqueous ozone solution is poured over the instrument (claim 16) and caused to contact the solution through a hose or tube (claim 17). Further, the instrument can be in a container filled with the solution (claim 18) during contact with the solution (stainless steel vessel with 500 ml capacity; see page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aqueous ozone solution to the makeup brushes of the above combined method by pouring over the solution on the makeup brush, by supplied the solution with a hose or tube, or in a container filled with the solution as all the modes of contact with the solution would not result in any new or unexpected results as the prior art recognizes that the solution can be flowing during contact with the object being sterilized and while the object is in a container.
Claims 2, 4-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taran in view of AAD and Graham Field (“Tincture of Grean Soap, N.F.”).
In regard to claims 2 and 19, Taran and ADD do not explicitly disclose a step of soaking the makeup brush in a tincture solution. ADD does disclose wherein the makeup brush is soaked in a solution of water and gentle or clarifying shampoo for removing the makeup and oil built up on the brush. See Steps 2, 3 and 5 on pages 1-2.
Graham Field discloses the composition tincture of green soap which can be used as a shampoo. Graham Field teaches wherein the tincture solution contains vegetable oil and is well-understood to contain glycerin as the detergent as recognized in the instant specification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the shampoo solution cleaning step of ADD with the above combined method and to have substituted the tincture composition of Graham Field for the shampoo of ADD for the purpose of cleaning makeup and oil from the makeup brush. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In regard to claims 4-5 and 7, Taran discloses wherein the instruments being sterilized go through a step of pre-cleaning wherein the instruments are placed in water and agitated in an ultrasonic cleaning unit (i.e. a vibration device which is connected to a container as recited in claims 5 and 7). See Section B on pages 3-4.
ADD also discloses wherein the makeup brush is swirled (i.e. agitated) in the shampoo solution to clean the brush.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ultrasonic agitation of Taran with the tincture solution soaking step of the above combined method for the purpose of dissolving and removing contaminants, such as makeup and oil, from the makeup brush. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
In regard to claims 6 and 8, Taran does not explicitly disclose wherein the instrument is attached the vibration device (claim 6) or wherein the vibration device is placed into the solution such that the solution is agitated around the makeup brush (claim 8). However, the limitations of claims 6 and 8 merely amount to rearrangement of parts which do not produce any new or unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the vibration device of Taran to be either placed into the solution or connected to the makeup brush in the above combined method without creating any new or unexpected results. The Courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taran in view of AAD and Munoz (US 2017/0119145)
In regard to claims 12-15, Taran and ADD are silent in regard to drying the brush by hanging the brush up (claim 12), blowing air over the brush (claim 13), blowing heated air over the brush (claim 14) or by using an air blower using auto induction with a mild air output (claim 15).
Munoz discloses a makeup brush dryer wherein makeup brushes can be hung up and contacted with air from a fan (i.e. a blower as recited in claim 15) and/or heater. Munoz teaches that the device can have “various types of air force and heat cycle settings” which is viewed to be capable of producing air with a mild air output. See [0027] [0031], and [0053] and Figures 1B, 1C and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the device of Munoz to hang up and blow heated air for drying the makeup brushes which were cleaned and sterilized by the above combined method of Taran and ADD without creating any new or unexpected results as ADD recognizes the need to dry makeup brushes after cleaning to avoid damaging the brushes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCormick et al. (US 2014/0096801).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774