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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed February 4,2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 7-10 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-6 and 11 are cancelled by applicant. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 7. The previous drawing objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s arguments. The previous 103 rejections has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. However, a new grounds of rejection has been made due to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recited the limitation “the protrusions are combined into groups on the one side face so as to generate an image” in lines 7-8. However, upon a review of the specification, the examiner cannot find any recitation of the protrusions generating an image. The examiner acknowledges that the protrusions combined into groups generate “a sort of bar code”, but does not explicitly disclose that the claimed group of protrusions form an image. As such the limitation is being regarded as new matter.
Claims 8-10 depends on claim 7 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
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 7-10 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the protrusions are combined into groups on the one side face so as to generate an image that identifies individual radial brushes of the disk-shaped radial brush " in lines 7-9. It is unclear how the group of protrusions of a single brush (see line 1 of claim 1 “a disk-shaped radial brush” that comprises a body with a plurality of bristles) can identify individual radial brushes (plural), since only one radial brush is claimed. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be functional language met by the structure of a group of protrusions that are capable of identifying individual radial brushes.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the image having a barcode appearance” in line 9. It is unclear what structure the group of protrusions which generate the image needs to have in order to be the barcode appearance (do they need to be shaped or spaced or arranged in a certain manner in order to qualify as having the barcode appearance?). Furthermore, the specification does not provide any further guidance in what is needed for the group of protrusions to have a barcode appearance and simply states “the protrusions on the one side of the radial brush may also be combined into groups. This allows generating a sort of bar code by means of the protrusions” (see page 005, ll. 12-13). Thus, rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation of having a barcode appearance to be met by having the structure of a group of protrusions.
Claims 8-10 depends on claim 7 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(1).
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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lageson (US Patent No. 6,422,932).
Regarding claim 7, Lageson discloses: a disk-shaped radial brush (Figures 7-12 element 10 and see also col. 7, ll. 33-35) for grinding or polishing (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the disk-shaped radial brush comprising:
a plate-shaped central body (element 12) having a pair of side faces (elements 24/26) and a central opening (see figure 7 annotated below Detail A); and
a plurality of bristles (element 18 and see also col. 7, ll. 36) extending radially away from said plate-shaped central body (see figure 7), said plate-shaped central body having protrusions (element 36) formed on one side face of the pair of side faces (see figures 9-10 showing a plan view and cross-sectional view of a portion of the brush wherein one side face (element 24) having protrusions protrusions (element 36)), another side face of the pair of side faces having corresponding receiving members (element 38) thereon (see figures 9-10 showing a plan view and cross-sectional view of a portion of the brush wherein another side face (element 26) having receiving members (element 38)), wherein the protrusions and the receiving members are circumferentially offset with each other (see figure 7 showing both the protrusions (element 36) and the receiving members (element 38) circumferentially arranged throughout the brush (element 10a) and see annotated figure 10 below showing a cross-sectional view of a portion of the brush showing a protrusion (box 1) being offset from a receiving member (circle 1) and another protrusion (box 2) being offset from a receiving member (circle 2), thus protrusions and the receiving members are circumferentially offset with each other) and the protrusions are combined into groups (see figures 7-8 element 28 and see also col. 4, ll. 45-47 where the prior art discloses element 28 (group) includes “a pattern of raised protrusions” (element 36)) on the one side face so as to generate an image that identifies individual radial brushes of the disk-shaped radial brush, the image having a barcode appearance (See figures 7-8 showing the protrusions (element 36) are combined into groups (element 28) on the one side face (element 24) and giving that there is no structural difference or additional structure provided, thus the groups of protrusions would be capable of generating the image that identifies individual radial brushes of the disk-shaped radial brush and the image having the barcode appearance, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
942
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lageson discloses: the disk-shaped radial brush of claim 7, wherein the protrusions and the receiving members having a substantially elongated shape (see figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 9, Lageson discloses: the disk-shaped radial brush of claim 8, wherein the protrusions and the receiving members extend in a substantially radial direction (see figure 8 annotated below showing both the protrusions (element 36) and receiving member (element 38) extending in a substantially radial direction (X- arrow)).
PNG
media_image3.png
628
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lageson discloses: the disk-shaped radial brush of claim 7, wherein the protrusions and the receiving members are disposed outside of an annular region surrounding the central opening (see figure 7 annotated below showing both the protrusions (element 36) and receiving member (element 38) disposed outside of an annular region (Detail A) surrounding the central opening).
PNG
media_image4.png
754
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723