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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/24/2023 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Sensors and actuators in claim 1
Reed switch and solenoid valve of claim 3
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 -20 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.
Claims 1 and 13 contain the limitation “that plants high-density and short length bristle tufts on a bristle carrier with fine pitch openings”. It is unclear what is considered “high density” versus low or medium density. It is unclear what is considered a short length bristle tuft. Lastly it is unclear what is considered fine pitch. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For examination purposes, if the art is capable of holding a bristle, it will meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim 12, 14, and 16-20 recites the limitation “a network of sensors and actuators controlled by the logic controller system that enables a pre-programmed sequence of processing steps.” In claim 1, “a network of sensors and actuators” was already introduced. It is unclear if this is the same or different network of sensors. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For Examination purposes, the claim is to be interpreted as “the network of sensors and actuators controlled by the logic controller system that enables the pre-programmed sequence of processing steps.”
Any claim not specifically rejected above is rejected due to its dependency on a claim rejected above.
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, 2, 4, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (US 4,310,377) in view of Rueb (US 5033797) in view of Morlock (EP3603446a1).
Regarding claim 1 and 13 (as best understood), Lorenz discloses a brush manufacturing machine comprising: a rotary transportation mechanism (Item 6; a bristle carrier loading station; one or more bristle dispensing station (Item 2) comprising a bristle feed mechanism, a bristle tuft picker, and a bristle plant feeder,
a logic controller system for providing programmed commands, controlling a machine sequence (Column 6 Lines 32-57).
Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose one or more bristle dispensing station comprising a bristle feed mechanism, a bristle tuft picker, and a bristle plant feeder,
Rueb teaches a brush manufacturing machine wherein a bristle dispensing station comprising a bristle feed mechanism (Item 15), a bristle tuft picker (Item 17), and a bristle plant feeder (Items 10, 13, and 20),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz to adapt the bristle dispensing station of Rueb. Rueb discusses in Column 3 Lines 14-16 that this modification of preparing the bristles and gathering the bristles into an array is simple and economical.
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 type of welding/fusion to be an ultrasonic fusion station. When fixing the bristles to the main bristle head, there are many different known methods. These include, melting and curing, welding, or adhesive (or other known methods). Some methods have their own benefits in regards to the properties or design of the brush. Using a method of welding versus ultrasonic welding is beneficial when using any plastic sort of material, because ultrasonic welding can weld to areas beneath the surface to increase the bond between different components.
Morlock teaches a brush manufacturing machine wherein a logic controller system for providing programmed commands, controlling the machine sequence and monitoring feedback of operating conditions at every station through a network of sensors and actuators (Paragraph 23-53 discusses various scenarios in which sensors can be used). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz to incorporate a variety of sensors as taught by Morlock. The use of various sensors is viewed as a manner to make a manual process automated, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). By understanding how the system is working, it would prevent unplanned down time (Morlock Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1, wherein the bristle carrier loading station comprises a vibrating feeder bowl (Lorenz Column 5 Lines 52-61), an orientation check feature (Morlock Paragraph 42-45), a gripper arm (Rueb Item 18a) having a presence sensor that controls the movement of the gripper arm (Morlock Paragraph 42-45).
Regarding claim 4, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1, wherein the bristle tuft picker comprises a picker plate with a picker face with one or more through holes with dimensions consistent with the through holes of the bristle carrier openings, the shape of the through holes is semi-circular (Rueb Figure 2 Item 18).
Regarding claim 10, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1, wherein the heating station comprises a heating element having a heating plate (Lorenz Item 51 and 52) shaped to match the bristle carrier profile and dimensions.
Regarding claim 12, 14, 16, and 18 (as best understood), Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1, comprising the network of sensors and actuators controlled by the logic controller system that enables the pre-programmed sequence of processing steps (Morlock, Paragraph 23-53 discusses various scenarios in which sensors can be used; and Lorenz Column 6 Lines 32-57) .
Claims 3, 5-8, 15, 17 and 19-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (US 4,310,377) in view of Rueb (US 5033797) in view of Morlock (EP3603446a1) in view of Durant (US 4774799).
Regarding claim 3, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1, wherein the bristle feed mechanism comprises a magazine for the bristle tufts, having a vertical compression plate and a horizontal compression plate (Annotated Figure 2 of Rueb). Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose controlled by a solenoid valve and reed switch.
Durant teaches a feed mechanism controlled by solenoid valve (table XIII) and a reed switch (Column 7 Lines15-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz to include the reed switch of Durant to help determine if there are bristles in the feed mechanism. Durant solves the same problem of using standard electronic components to determine if there is product in the feed mechanism. The use of various sensors is viewed as a manner to make a manual process automated, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Durant calls the reed switch “a standard cut off device”, which establishes that reed switches are known in the art for their capability of weighing and creating a signal when the weight is below a certain level. That signal can be used by a controller to shut off various solenoid valves.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock in view of Durant disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 3 wherein the bristle plant feeder comprises a conically shaped nozzle (Rueb Item 19 or 34).
Regarding claim 6, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock in view of Durant disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 5, wherein the conically shaped nozzle embodies a first opening, and a second opening, where a first diameter of corresponding to the first opening is larger than the a second diameter of corresponding to the second opening (best shown in Figure 14 of Rueb).
Regarding claim 7, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock in view of Durant disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 6, wherein the conically shaped nozzle receives a distal end of a transport line (Rueb Item 10) at the first opening (Rueb Item 34 or 19).
Regarding claim 8, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock in view of Durant disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 7, wherein the conically shaped nozzle receives the bristle tufts through the transport line through the first opening to the second opening via a blower and suction system (Rueb Column 11 Line 59-Coluumn 12 Line 59).
Regarding claim 15, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock in view of Durant disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 3, wherein the bristle tuft picker comprises a picker plate with a picker face with one or more through holes with dimensions consistent with the through holes of the bristle carrier openings, the shape of the through holes is semi-circular (Rueb Figure 2 Item 18).
Regarding claim 17 and 19-20 (as best understood), Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock in view of Durant disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 3, comprising the network of sensors and actuators controlled by the logic controller system that enables the pre-programmed sequence of processing steps (Morlock, Paragraph 23-53 discusses various scenarios in which sensors can be used; and Lorenz Column 6 Lines 32-57).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (US 4,310,377) in view of Rueb (US 5033797) in view of Morlock (EP3603446a1) in view of Brown (US 2004/0048063).
Regarding claim 9, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic fusion station shaped to match the bristle carrier profile and dimensions (Lorenz Figure 1 Item 4, Rueb Item 27). Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasonic fusion station comprises an ultrasonic horn.
Brown teaches a brush manufacturing machine wherein the ultrasonic fusion station comprises an ultrasonic horn (Paragraph 46, Item 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz with the ultrasonic horn of Brown. The ultrasonic horn of Brown is used in close proximity with an anvil to melt plastic to the optimal degree while controlling the flow of excess material (Brown paragraph 13, 46-47).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (US 4,310,377) in view of Rueb (US 5033797) in view of Morlock (EP3603446a1) in view of Jacobsen (US 5,588,688).
Regarding claim 11, Lorenz in view of Rueb in view of Morlock disclose the brush manufacturing machine according to claim 1. Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the unloading station comprises a presence sensor and a pick-and-place gripper.
Jacobsen teaches a robot arm that is capable of moving different small payloads in any desirable scenario to help with automated processes (Column 1 Lines 17-57). Jacobsen’s robot arm comprises a presence sensor (Item 25) and a pick-and-place gripper (Item 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a robotic arm to Lorenz similar to that taught by Jacobsen. Such a modification would reduce the need for human interaction .
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