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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species 2 is acknowledged. Upon further consideration, Examiner finds that Species 1 and 2 listed in the Requirement for Restriction pertain to the same species and are not independent and distinct inventions. Accordingly, the Requirement with respect to Species 1 and 2 is withdrawn (they will be considered together as elected Species 2). The Requirement with respect to Species 3 and 4 remains unchanged. Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Requirement for Restriction between Species 2 (including Species 1), Species 3, and Species 4, and the election between Species 2-4 has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP § 818.01(a). Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215 (CCPA 1971); MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1A-D, 2A-C, and 6A-C are low resolution, dithered, and/or in grayscale/halftones, rendering them visually unclear. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20220212385 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20240416372 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap) and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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 U.S.C. § 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 9-11 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 9-11 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the microtexturing” (claim 9, line 3); Examiner suggests changing this to --the microtexture--;
“the microtexturing” (claim 10, line 3); Examiner suggests changing this to --the microtexture--;
“the microtexturing” (claim 11, line 2); Examiner suggests changing this to --the microtexture--.
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending applications and issued patent: 17/959,606, titled “BRUSHES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR DISPENSING MULTIPLE FLUIDS DURING CLEANING OF A SURFACE”; 18/449,086, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF FORMING A BRUSH TO CLEAN A SURFACE”; and US 11,694,910 B2, titled “BRUSH WITH NON-CONSTANT NODULE DENSITY”. These copending applications have pending claims directed to similar subject matter, and the issued patent has claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application are sufficiently delineated and patentably distinct from those of the copending applications and the issued patent. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending applications be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending applications and/or the issued patent. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Philipossian in view of McMullen
Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022115671 A1 (“Philipossian”) in view of US 20020100132 A1 (“McMullen”).
Philipossian pertains to a system, including a brush, for cleaning semiconductor substrates (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 1, lines 9-12). McMullen pertains to a system, including a brush, for cleaning semiconductor substrates (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Philipossian discloses a brush for cleaning of a substrate (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C, brush 300; p. 1, lines 9-12), the brush comprising:
a porous polymeric brush body having one or more contact surfaces for cleaning the substrate (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 11, lines 12-31, brush body 306 is made of a porous polymeric material (polyvinyl acetal (PVA)) and has contact surfaces (surface of nodules 308) that are capable of cleaning a substrate),
and a brush support configured to mechanically couple the brush body to an actuator (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 4, lines 15-32, p. 6, lines 1-15, mandrel 302 supports brush body 306 and is capable of coupling the brush body 306 to an actuator; Examiner notes that “an actuator” is not positively claimed and is not part of the recited “brush”).
Philipossian does not explicitly disclose the one or more contact surfaces comprising a microtexture. However, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious this claim.
McMullen discloses a porous polymeric brush body having one or more contact surfaces for cleaning the substrate, the one or more contact surfaces comprising a microtexture (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0020-0035, the porous polymeric brush body 200 and 300 have a skin 204, 310, 400 with contact surfaces having a microtexture (e.g., as seen in Fig. 4 at reference 400a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of McMullen with Philipossian by modifying the contact surfaces of the Philipossian brush body 306 to have a microtexture. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because a microtexture on the contact surfaces (e.g., on the outer surfaces of the nodules 308 or the cylindrical outer surface 309) could be useful to effectuate better cleaning: “A textured brush skin could also be used to influence friction factors and fluid dynamics on a microscopic level at the brush-substrate interface. Properties such as shear forces, mass transport, and surface chemistry could be influenced and controlled by the texture of the brush skin. The coarseness of a textured brush skin could be tailored to achieve optimum results in removing particle contamination from a given type of substrate. The texture of the resilient skin can vary in roughness, and can be random or patterned in nature. In one embodiment of the present invention, the location and character of the texturing could be determined by the presence of corresponding textured features on the surface of the mold.” (McMullen ¶¶ 0033-0035).
Regarding claim 2, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian further discloses wherein the brush body is substantially cylindrical (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C, cylindrical brush body 306). As modified in claim 1, the exterior surface of the cylindrical brush body 306 comprises the microtexture (as taught by McMullen).
Regarding claim 3, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 2 as applied above. Philipossian further discloses wherein the brush support comprises a mandrel configured to rotate the brush about an axis of the cylindrical brush body (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 4, lines 15-32, p. 6, lines 1-15, mandrel 302 supports brush body 306 and is capable of rotating the brush 300 about an axis of the brush body 306).
Regarding claim 4, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian further discloses wherein the brush body is substantially cylindrical and comprises a plurality of nodules extending from the cylindrical brush body, the plurality of nodules comprising the contact surfaces (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C, cylindrical brush body 306 with nodules 308 having contact surfaces). As modified in claim 1, the contact surfaces of the plurality of nodules 308 comprising the microtexture (as taught by McMullen).
Regarding claim 5, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 4 as applied above. Philipossian further discloses wherein an axial dimension of the brush body is greater than a radial dimension (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C, brush 300 has an axial dimension greater than its radial dimension as shown).
Regarding claim 9, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. McMullen further discloses wherein the microtexture is structured to provide an enhanced lubrication between the one or more contact surfaces and the substrate, compared with a lack of the microtextur[e] on the one or more contact surfaces (¶¶ 0034-0035, the microtexture of skin 204/310/400 is capable of performing the recited function compared to a contact surface without the microtexture; Examiner notes this limitation is very broad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify Philipossian with the teachings of McMullen by modifying the microtexture to perform the recited function (to provide an enhanced lubrication) because this is simply a design choice that is contemplated by McMullen (¶¶ 0034-0035) that can result in a better cleaning effect. Further, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the construction of the microtexture is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid dynamic, friction, and cleaning factors of the contact surface (McMullen ¶¶ 0034-0035, “A textured brush skin could also be used to influence friction factors and fluid dynamics on a microscopic level at the brush-substrate interface. Properties such as shear forces, mass transport, and surface chemistry could be influenced and controlled by the texture of the brush skin. The coarseness of a textured brush skin could be tailored to achieve optimum results in removing particle contamination from a given type of substrate.”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found a proper microtexture for the desired characteristic through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any particular microtexture construction or geometry as being critical (Spec. ¶¶ 0054-0055). Accordingly, this particular microtexture construction is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 10, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. McMullen further discloses wherein the microtexture is structured to provide an increased friction between the one or more contact surfaces and the substrate, compared with a lack of the microtextur[e] on the one or more contact surfaces (¶¶ 0034-0035, the microtexture of skin 204/310/400 is capable of performing the recited function compared to a contact surface without the microtexture; Examiner notes this limitation is very broad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify Philipossian with the teachings of McMullen by modifying the microtexture to perform the recited function (to provide an increased friction) because this is simply a design choice that is contemplated by McMullen (¶¶ 0034-0035) that can result in a better cleaning effect. Further, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the construction of the microtexture is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid dynamic, friction, and cleaning factors of the contact surface (McMullen ¶¶ 0034-0035, “A textured brush skin could also be used to influence friction factors and fluid dynamics on a microscopic level at the brush-substrate interface. Properties such as shear forces, mass transport, and surface chemistry could be influenced and controlled by the texture of the brush skin. The coarseness of a textured brush skin could be tailored to achieve optimum results in removing particle contamination from a given type of substrate.”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found a proper microtexture for the desired characteristic through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any particular microtexture construction or geometry as being critical (Spec. ¶¶ 0054-0055). Accordingly, this particular microtexture construction is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. McMullen further discloses wherein the microtexture is structured to provide an improved cleaning efficiency, compared with a lack of the microtextur[e] on the one or more contact surfaces (¶¶ 0034-0035, the microtexture of skin 204/310/400 is capable of performing the recited function compared to a contact surface without the microtexture; Examiner notes this limitation is very broad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify Philipossian with the teachings of McMullen by modifying the microtexture to perform the recited function (to provide an improved cleaning efficiency) because this is simply a design choice that is contemplated by McMullen (¶¶ 0034-0035) that can result in a better cleaning effect. Further, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the construction of the microtexture is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid dynamic, friction, and cleaning factors of the contact surface (McMullen ¶¶ 0034-0035, “A textured brush skin could also be used to influence friction factors and fluid dynamics on a microscopic level at the brush-substrate interface. Properties such as shear forces, mass transport, and surface chemistry could be influenced and controlled by the texture of the brush skin. The coarseness of a textured brush skin could be tailored to achieve optimum results in removing particle contamination from a given type of substrate.”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found a proper microtexture for the desired characteristic through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any particular microtexture construction or geometry as being critical (Spec. ¶¶ 0054-0055). Accordingly, this particular microtexture construction is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian further discloses wherein the porous polymeric brush body comprises at least one of a polyvinyl acetal foam, a polyurethane foam, a polyolefin foam, a porous fluoropolymer, a silicone foam, a polyester foam, a nylon foams, or a polyacrylic foam (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 11, lines 12-31, brush body 306 is made of a porous polymeric material (polyvinyl acetal (PVA) foam)).
Regarding claim 13, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. McMullen further discloses wherein the porous polymeric brush body is configured to disperse fluid through the microtexture (¶¶ 0031-0035, as modified in claim 1, brush body is capable of dispersing fluid by way of the microtexture: “A textured brush skin could also be used to influence friction factors and fluid dynamics on a microscopic level at the brush-substrate interface. Properties such as shear forces, mass transport, and surface chemistry could be influenced and controlled by the texture of the brush skin.”).
Regarding claim 14, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian further discloses wherein the brush body is molded over the brush support, assembled and then mounted on the brush support, or assembled as a sponge-only brush (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C, brush body 306 is shown assembled and then mounted on the brush support mandrel 302; Examiner notes that this limitation appears to be a product-by-process limitation, but the resulting structure remains the same regardless of whether the device is actually produced/assembled in this manner. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir 1985) (“The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.... If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”); MPEP § 2113(I)).
Regarding claim 19, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. McMullen further discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features having a varied orientation over a surface of the brush body (Fig. 4; ¶ 0026, skin 400 (which is a microscope image of skin 204 and 310) shows the microtexture having features that have a varied orientation over the surface of the brush body).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Philipossian discloses a system to clean a substrate (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C, system 10), the system comprising:
a cleaning brush (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C, brush 300; p. 1, lines 9-12), comprising:
a porous polymeric brush body having one or more contact surfaces for cleaning the substrate (Figs. 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 11, lines 12-31, brush body 306 is made of a porous polymeric material (polyvinyl acetal (PVA)) and has contact surfaces (surface of nodules 308) that are capable of cleaning a substrate),
and a brush support configured to mechanically support the brush body (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 4, lines 15-32, p. 6, lines 1-15, mandrel 302 supports brush body 306 and is capable of coupling the brush body 306 to an actuator);
and an actuator configured to couple to the brush support and to rotate the brush along an axis of the cleaning brush via the brush support (Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 1, lines 21-32, an actuator of system 10 couples to mandrel 302 and rotates brush 300 along its axis).
Philipossian does not explicitly disclose the one or more contact surfaces comprising a microtexture. However, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious this claim.
McMullen discloses a porous polymeric brush body having one or more contact surfaces for cleaning the substrate, the one or more contact surfaces comprising a microtexture (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0020-0035, the porous polymeric brush body 200 and 300 have a skin 204, 310, 400 with contact surfaces having a microtexture (e.g., as seen in Fig. 4 at reference 400a).
The obviousness rationale for claim 20 is the same as for claim 1.
Philipossian in view of McMullen, Vetter, and Song
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022115671 A1 (“Philipossian”) in view of US 20020100132 A1 (“McMullen”), US 20120084933 A1 (“Vetter”), and US 20180160873 A1 (“Song”).
Philipossian pertains to a system, including a brush, for cleaning semiconductor substrates (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 3A-G, 4A-C; p. 1, lines 9-12). McMullen pertains to a system, including a brush, for cleaning semiconductor substrates (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). McMullen pertains to a brush for cleaning a surface (Abstr.; Figs. 2-4; ¶¶ 0001-0015). Song pertains to a brush for cleaning a surface (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-D, 2A-C, 4A-B, 5A-B; ¶ 0001). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 15, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian and McMullen do not explicitly disclose wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features which are aligned in a direction of motion of the brush body during cleaning. However, the Philipossian/McMullen/Vetter/Song combination makes obvious this claim.
Vetter discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features... (¶ 0049, “The granular materials of the first stratum 30a may create a microtexture of asperities. These asperities may locally increase pressure on the target surface in response to compression applied by the user through the handle. The local increase in pressure may assist in scrubbing stains etc. from the toilet bowl. The granular materials may be in the shape of rods, sheets, spheres and/or combinations thereof and have a particle size from 1 to 13,000 or 100 to 5000 microns.”).
Song discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features which are aligned in a direction of motion of the brush body during cleaning (Figs. 1A-D, 2A-C, 4A-B, 5A-B, microtexture features 20 (“micro protrusions”) are present on nodules 18 (“macro protrusion surface”) and are aligned horizontally and vertically relative to the brush pad (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2C)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Vetter and Song with the Philipossian/McMullen by modifying the microtexture as recited (e.g., with micro protrusions 20 oriented orthogonally to the cylindrical brush’s axis) because this is simply a design choice that can result in a better cleaning effect. Further, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). Here, the orientation, construction, and geometry of the microtexture is a known result-effective variable because it achieves the recognized result of changing the fluid dynamic, friction, and cleaning factors of the contact surface (McMullen ¶¶ 0034-0035, “A textured brush skin could also be used to influence friction factors and fluid dynamics on a microscopic level at the brush-substrate interface. Properties such as shear forces, mass transport, and surface chemistry could be influenced and controlled by the texture of the brush skin. The coarseness of a textured brush skin could be tailored to achieve optimum results in removing particle contamination from a given type of substrate.”). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the effect of this variable and found a proper microtexture orientation, construction, and geometry for the desired characteristic through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any particular microtexture orientation, construction, or geometry as being critical (Spec. ¶¶ 0054-0055). Accordingly, this particular microtexture orientation, construction, and geometry is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 16, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian and McMullen do not explicitly disclose wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features which are aligned transverse to a direction of motion of the brush body during cleaning. However, the Philipossian/McMullen/Vetter/Song combination makes obvious this claim.
Vetter discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features... (¶ 0049, “The granular materials of the first stratum 30a may create a microtexture of asperities. These asperities may locally increase pressure on the target surface in response to compression applied by the user through the handle. The local increase in pressure may assist in scrubbing stains etc. from the toilet bowl. The granular materials may be in the shape of rods, sheets, spheres and/or combinations thereof and have a particle size from 1 to 13,000 or 100 to 5000 microns.”).
Song discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features which are aligned transverse to a direction of motion of the brush body during cleaning (Figs. 1A-D, 2A-C, 4A-B, 5A-B, microtexture features 20 (“micro protrusions”) are present on nodules 18 (“macro protrusion surface”) and are aligned horizontally and vertically relative to the brush pad (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2C)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 16 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian and McMullen do not explicitly disclose wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features having at least one of a rounded shape, a pointed shape, a squared shape, or a linear shape. However, the Philipossian/McMullen/Vetter/Song combination makes obvious this claim.
Vetter discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features having at least one of a rounded shape, a pointed shape, a squared shape, or a linear shape (¶ 0049, “The granular materials of the first stratum 30a may create a microtexture of asperities. These asperities may locally increase pressure on the target surface in response to compression applied by the user through the handle. The local increase in pressure may assist in scrubbing stains etc. from the toilet bowl. The granular materials may be in the shape of rods, sheets, spheres and/or combinations thereof and have a particle size from 1 to 13,000 or 100 to 5000 microns.”).
Song discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features having at least one of a rounded shape, a pointed shape, a squared shape, or a linear shape (Figs. 1A-D, 2A-C, 4A-B, 5A-B, microtexture features 20 (“micro protrusions”) are present on nodules 18 (“macro protrusion surface”) and are aligned horizontally and vertically relative to the brush pad (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2C)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the Philipossian/McMullen combination makes obvious the brush of claim 1 as applied above. Philipossian and McMullen do not explicitly disclose wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features having a constant orientation over a surface of the brush body. However, the Philipossian/McMullen/Vetter/Song combination makes obvious this claim.
Vetter discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features... (¶ 0049, “The granular materials of the first stratum 30a may create a microtexture of asperities. These asperities may locally increase pressure on the target surface in response to compression applied by the user through the handle. The local increase in pressure may assist in scrubbing stains etc. from the toilet bowl. The granular materials may be in the shape of rods, sheets, spheres and/or combinations thereof and have a particle size from 1 to 13,000 or 100 to 5000 microns.”).
Song discloses wherein the microtexture comprises a plurality of features having a constant orientation over a surface of the brush body (Figs. 1A-D, 2A-C, 4A-B, 5A-B, microtexture features 20 (“micro protrusions”) are present on nodules 18 (“macro protrusion surface”) and are aligned horizontally and vertically relative to the brush pad (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2C) and have the same orientation (e.g., pointed upwards) over the surface of the brush pad; Examiner interprets “having a constant orientation” to include the meaning of having the same orientation).
The obviousness rationale for claim 18 is the same as for claim 15.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723