DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Medicine
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 6/29/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 11 & 16-34 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 6-10 & 12-15 is/are canceled without prejudice, claim(s) 11 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 16-34 are newly added; all other claims are original or previously presented.
Claims 25-34 are withdrawn, see below for details.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-34 directed to inventions that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The newly added independent claim 25 and its dependents are drawn to a method of use which is distinct from an apparatus.
The newly added independent claim 31 and its dependents are drawn to a method of manufacture which is distinct from an apparatus.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-34 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
The terms “generally” & “substantially” used in the claims is interpreted to mean the shape of a portion of a brush while not perfectly straight or flat due to the nature of bristles having individual height differences or brush ferrules having small bumps form a straight line as a profile or a flat surface overall.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 16-17, 19, & 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belley (US D584897) in view of Marino (US 4590637), hereinafter Belley & Marino, respectively.
Regarding claim 11. Lu discloses a cut-in brush for painting, comprising:
(a) a handle [Figure 1 of this action];
(b) a ferrule coupled to the handle [Figure 1 of this action]; and
(c) a brush head extending from the ferrule and comprising a plurality of brush filaments of varying lengths, distal ends of the plurality of brush filaments collectively defining a distal tip of the brush head [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 2; the brush filaments are varying lengths as they from a distal tip of the brush head];
(d) wherein the brush head has oppositely facing major faces and oppositely facing minor side faces extending between the major faces, the brush head having a width measured between the minor side faces and a thickness measured between the major faces, the width being greater than the thickness [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 1-5; the brush head has oppositely facing major faces and minor side faces with width between the minor side faces being larger than the thickness between the major faces]; and
(e) wherein the distal tip has:
(i) a generally V-shaped distal profile when viewed in a first view direction normal to either one of the major faces, the generally V-shaped distal profile extending along the width and including first and second distal edge portions that converge toward an apex region [Figure 1 of this action & Fig 2; the distal tip is generally V-shaped that has two distal edge portions converging into an apex]; and …
PNG
media_image1.png
623
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig 2 of Belley
Belley may not explicitly disclose (ii) a single, generally inclined distal profile when viewed in a second view direction normal to either one of the minor side faces, the single, generally inclined distal profile extending along the thickness between a first location adjacent a first one of the major faces at a first longitudinal distance from the ferrule and a second location adjacent a second one of the major faces at a second longitudinal distance from the ferrule that is less than the first longitudinal distance.
However Marino teaches a paint brush [10] with a single, generally inclined distal profile when viewed in a second view direction normal to either one of the minor side faces [Fig 1-2; the distal tip of the brush head has an inclined profile when viewed from a direction normal to the minor side faces], the single, generally inclined distal profile extending along the thickness between a first location adjacent a first one of the major faces at a first longitudinal distance from the ferrule and a second location adjacent a second one of the major faces at a second longitudinal distance from the ferrule that is less than the first longitudinal distance [Fig 1-2; the plan 30 is a distal profile extending along the thickness between the two major faces with two longitudinal distances from the ferrule (12) that are not the same].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the paintbrush as disclosed by Belley to have a single, generally inclined distal profile when viewed in a second view direction normal to either one of the minor side faces, the single, generally inclined distal profile extending along the thickness between a first location adjacent a first one of the major faces at a first longitudinal distance from the ferrule and a second location adjacent a second one of the major faces at a second longitudinal distance from the ferrule that is less than the first longitudinal distance as taught by Marino for the purpose of greater exposure of bristles at the working surface as compared to a conventional brush of corresponding type and size, i.e., the tuft of each brush having the same overall width, thickness and length. The greater exposure permits the brush to hold and apply more paint as the brush is stroked across a surface with the working surface contacting the surface to be painted [Marino: Col4:line4-11].
Regarding claim 16. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, wherein the varying lengths of the plurality of brush filaments define both the generally V-shaped distal profile and the single, generally inclined distal profile [Belley: Fig 2-3 & Marino: Fig 1-2].
Regarding claim 17. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, wherein the apex region is disposed substantially midway across the width of the brush head [Belley: Fig 2].
Regarding claim 19. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, wherein the first and second distal edge portions of the generally V-shaped distal profile are substantially straight [Belley: Fig 2].
Regarding claim 21 & 22. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the brush is a 2-inch brush (or a 2.5-inch brush for claim 22).
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the brush as taught by Belley as modified to be a 2 or 2.5-inch brush since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the brush of Belley as modified would not operate differently with the claimed size. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the sizes.
Regarding claim 23. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, wherein the handle includes an opening extending through the handle [Belley: Fig 2].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belley in view of Marino further in view of Sherman et al. (US D733437), hereinafter Sherman.
Regarding claim 18. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, wherein the apex region of the generally V-shaped distal profile comprises a curved apex portion [Belley: Fig 2], and wherein the single, generally inclined distal profile comprises a … longitudinally distal apex portion.
Belley as modified may not explicitly disclose a curved longitudinally distal apex portion.
Sherman teaches a paintbrush with a single, generally inclined distal profile comprising a curved longitudinally distal apex portion [Fig 4-5].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal distal apex portion as disclosed by Belley as modified to be a curved longitudinally distal apex portion as taught by Sherman as pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration (e.g. shape) of the claimed invention is significant, changes in shape are considered to be matters of design choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious.
Regarding claim 20. Belley as modified the brush of claim 11, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the ferrule comprises four generally planar ferrule walls.
However Sherman teaches a paintbrush with the ferrule comprises four generally planar ferrule walls [Fig 1 & 4-6].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ferrule walls as disclosed by Belley as modified to have all four of the walls be generally planar as taught by Sherman as pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration (e.g. shape) of the claimed invention is significant, changes in shape are considered to be matters of design choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belley in view of Marino further in view of Lu et al. (US 20240197066), hereinafter Lu
Regarding claim 24. Belley as modified teaches the brush of claim 11, but may not explicitly disclose wherein a longitudinally distal portion of the brush head forming the distal tip includes fewer filaments than a longitudinally proximal portion of the brush head located between the distal tip and the ferrule.
However Lu teaches a paintbrush [10] wherein a longitudinally distal portion of the brush head forming the distal tip [Fig 1-3; 24 is the distal tip of the distal portion of the brush head] includes fewer filaments than a longitudinally proximal portion of the brush head located between the distal tip and the ferrule [¶26-¶27; the bristles within the brush head vary in length with a number of the filaments not reaching to the distal tip].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filaments as disclosed by Belley as modified to have wherein a longitudinally distal portion of the brush head forming the distal tip includes fewer filaments than a longitudinally proximal portion of the brush head located between the distal tip and the ferrule as taught by Lu for the purpose of adjust and change the paintbrush properties as desired [Lu: ¶27].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
Applicant's amendments, filed 6/29/2026, cancel the rejected claims. The rejections of 4/28/2026 are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights