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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/31/25.
The examiner inadvertently failed to include claim 18 in the withdrawn listing of claims in the previous office action. Claim 18 is not directed the elected species of figures 30-32.
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) 5, 8, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Leira (USPN 2935755).
Leira teaches a pin brush comprising: an elongated handle (1); a brush head (2) integrally (shown in figure 1 and 4) formed at an end of the elongated handle, the brush head comprising a rounded housing (2; end of housing is rounded); and a plurality of scraping pins (32) mounted within the rounded housing; wherein the scraping pins are operative to extend from the housing in a resting position and to retract into the housing when pressed against a surface (col. 2, lines 28-35).
With regards to claim 8, the scraping pins are configured as a parallel array mounted within a pin base (pin base is not defined and therefore 7 can be considered the pin base).
With regards to claim 20, the scraping pins are configured for cleaning heated grill grates at cooking temperatures. This is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The brush of Leira is fully capable of cleaning a grill grate at cooking temperatures. The material of the pins are not defined, nor is the cooking temperature. This leaves the claim open to broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaty (USPN 8506197) in view of Geller (PGPub 20050160544).
Beaty teaches a pin brush comprising: a brush head (300) comprising a rounded housing (302; figure 10); and a plurality of scraping pins (312) mounted within the rounded housing; wherein the scraping pins are operative to extend from the housing in a resting position and to retract into the housing when pressed against a surface (figure 7).
Beaty teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach an elongated handle attached to the housing. Geller teaches a brush with an integral elongated handle (112) (paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beaty with a handle as taught by Geller to allow for the brush head to be gripped away from the head, thus preventing the user’s hands from getting dirty while using the brush.
With regards to claim 6, the rounded housing comprises a head threadedly (360) coupled with a retainer (340), said retainer being operative to retain the plurality of scraping pins in an operative configuration within the head.
With regards to claim 8, the scraping pins are configured as a parallel array mounted within a pin base (figure 7 shows that they are parallel to each other in pin base 350).
With regards to claim 9, the rounded housing has a sidewall (edge of 300) and further comprises a circular pin plate (330) mounted to a channel around an interior of the sidewall, said circular pin plate having apertures (332) configured to accommodate the plurality of scraping pins; and wherein each of said scraping pins comprises an upper pin (320) portion having a head, with a diameter larger than a diameter of the associated aperture, coupled to a lower pin portion.
With regards to claim 19, the retainer has a sidewall with a shoulder formed therein (corner edge formed between the sidewall and the top surface of the retainer).
With regards to claim 20, the scraping pins are configured for cleaning heated grill grates at cooking temperatures. This is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The brush of Beaty is fully capable of cleaning a grill grate at cooking temperatures. The material of the pins are not defined, nor is the cooking temperature. This leaves the claim open to broadest reasonable interpretation.
With regards to claim 21, there is a pin sleeve (368, 370) disposed between the retainer and the plurality of scraping pins.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Leira reference, the applicant argues that the rubber massage pins are not considered to be scraping pins. The applicant does not specify what constitutes “scraping pin” and therefore, massage pin could be considered scraping pins. They are certainly capable of scraping a surface even if that is not their intended use.
The applicant also argues that Leira fails to teach a pin base, however the pin base has no structural elements to it and therefore, it can be determined that anything that holds the pins can be considered a pin base.
Claim 9 rejection with regards to Leira has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Beaty in view of Geller rejection, the applicant argues they are non-analogous art. In response, they are both brushes performing a job to clean. The Geller reference is solely being used for its teaching of a handle on a brush head. The applicant further states that the handle of Geller is not integrally attached to the brush head, however paragraph 0037 of Gellar teaches that the brush head and handle are a one-piece configuration.
The applicant also argues that the pins of Beaty are not considered to be scraping pins. The applicant does not specify what constitutes “scraping pin” and therefore, the pins could be considered scraping pins. They are certainly capable of scraping a surface even if that is not their intended use.
The applicant states that neither Leira or Beaty are grill cleaners. This is recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The prior art teach all the structural limitations of the claimed invention and therefore would be capable of performing the intended use.
Conclusion
This is a second non-final office action since the examiner inadvertently failed to address claim 19 in the previous office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723