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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: brush head (1), brush ends (2), handle (3), locking mechanism (4), peg ejector (5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 is missing punctuation and is not in one sentence form.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the magnetic ring lock mechanism" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should this instead recite “a magnetic ring lock mechanism”?
Claim 3 line 2 recites the limitation “a magnetic ring”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which also recites a magnetic ring. Is this structure the same magnetic ring? Is claim 3 line 2 meant to recite “the magnetic ring”? It is also unclear that claim 3 line 4 recites plural magnetic rings.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 recites the limitation “a peg ejector”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 which also recites a peg ejector. Is this structure the same peg ejector? Is claim 4 lines 1-2 meant to recite “the peg ejector”?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the magnetic ring lock mechanism" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should this instead recite “a magnetic ring lock mechanism”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang, CN 218164532 U (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a detachable brush comprising: a brush head (1, Figure 1); detachable brush ends (2; see Figures); a magnetic ring made of a magnetic material and installed on one of the brush head or the detachable brush end (8, Figure 2; see English translation); a magnetic metal peg/plunger made of a magnetic metal and installable on the either of the brush head or the detachable brush end (10, Figure 2); a peg ejector (12); and an elongated handle holder (upper sleeve extending from brush head 1 that connects to handle 3 in Figure 1). Regarding claim 2, the detachable brush ends comprise a plurality of bristles extending from a central hub (bristles 7, hub includes 2 and 6) wherein, when the brush head and the detachable brush end are brought together, the magnetic force between the magnetic ring and the magnetic metal pin creates an attractive force that draws the magnetic metal pin into the hole within the magnetic ring, thereby securing the attachment between the brush head and the detachable brush end during pool cleaning (Figures 2-3, see also English translation). Regarding claim 3, the magnetic ring lock mechanism comprises a magnetic ring either installed on the brush head or a magnetic ring installed on the detachable brush ends (8, Figure 2; see English translation), wherein the magnetic rings attract the metallic peg / plunger to securely lock the brush ends to the brush head (see English translation and Figures). Regarding claim 4, there is a peg ejector (12) removably attached to the brush head (see Figures), wherein the peg ejector is configured to disengage the metallic peg out of the peg holes embedded into the detachable brush ends, removable from the brush head (see English translation description of the operation of 12). Regarding claim 6, the detachable brush ends comprise curved/rounded ends and straight brush ends (Figure 2). Regarding claim 7, the brush head (1), detachable brush ends (2), and handle (3) are detachable from each other, facilitating interchangeability, compact storage and transportation needs (see English translation).
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.
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.
5. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, CN 218164532 U (see also English translation) in view of Rudy, US 2,697,642.
Zhang discloses all elements previously discussed above including a handle (3) and appears to be removably attached to the brush head via fasteners (shown in Figure 1, unlabeled and not described). Also, as discussed above, Zhang does teach attachments in the form of magnetic ring lock mechanisms (see English translation, magnetic ring and metal pin). Zhang fails to specifically disclose that the handle is removably attached using a magnetic ring lock mechanism.
Rudy teaches a brush head (15) that connects to a handle (2) using a magnetic lock mechanism (11, 14) to secure the brush head to the handle (column 1 line 79 to column 2 line 5). The magnetic lock mechanism allows the cleaning device couple in a simple manner, having a minimum number of parts, requires little storage, and is inexpensive to manufacture (column 1 lines 34-55).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle and brush head of Zhang so that they are removably attached by a magnetic lock mechanism, as taught by Rudy, so that a user can couple the handle to the head in a simple manner for easy disassembly to store the tool and it would have been obvious for the magnetic lock mechanism to be in the same design as the other magnetic lock mechanisms of Zhang, having a magnetic ring, so that the same part can be used in all of the detachable portions of the overall detachable pool brush.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 202011101141 U1 teach a cleaning device with a magnetic ring lock mechanism (40, 42 and Figure 4). US 10,188,200 B1 to Hetzner teach a pool brush with detachable curved ends (see Figures). US 2025/0283340 to Zhang et al. is a similar pool cleaning assembly with a filing date after the effective filing date of this application.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg