Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/557,112

PAINT BRUSH

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 25, 2023
Examiner
JENNINGS, MICHAEL DEANGILO
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Australian Brushware Corporation Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
840 granted / 1081 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1117
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1081 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 1. 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 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (9.055,807) to Dale (cited by Applicant). Regarding independent claim 1, Dale discloses a handle (10); a ferrule (14) secured to the handle (10); and a brush head (18) including a plurality of synthetic bristle filaments (30) (See Col. 2 lines 55-60) extending in a longitudinal direction from the ferrule (14) (See Col. 2 lines 15-35), the brush head (18) having a width dimension and a thickness dimension in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (vertical direction), with the width dimension being greater than the thickness dimension (See FIG. 2), and each filament (30) having a fixed end secured at the ferrule (14) and an opposite free end longitudinally distant from the ferrule (14) with the free ends of at least a portion of the filaments (14) collectively define a substantially chisel-shaped tip profile in a plane perpendicular (See FIG. 3) to the width dimension such that an apex (38) of the chisel-shaped tip extends across the width of the brush head (18) (See Col. 4 lines 35-45). Regarding claim 2, Dale discloses that the chisel-shaped tip is a symmetrical, rounded V-shaped tip with a rounded apex (38). Regarding claim 3, Dale discloses that the sides of the V-shaped tip (See FIG. 4) form an internal angle of less than 90 degrees (See FIG. 4). Regarding independent claim 14, Dale discloses a handle (10); a ferrule (14) secured to the handle (10); and a brush head (18) comprising a plurality of synthetic bristle filaments (See Col. 2 lines 15-35) extending in a longitudinal direction from the ferrule (14), the brush head (18) having a width dimension and a thickness dimension in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, with the width dimension being greater than the thickness dimension, and each filament (30) having a fixed end secured at the ferrule (14) and an opposite free end longitudinally distant from the ferrule (14) with every filament (30) in the brush head (18) is tapered from its fixed end to its free end, with the taper of each filament extending over at least 60% of its length (See FIG. 3) (See Col. 4 lines 35-45). Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (4,590,637) to Marino. Regarding independent claim 1, Marino discloses a handle (13); a ferrule (11) secured to the handle (13) (See Col. 3 lines 30-45); and a brush head (16) including a plurality of synthetic bristle filaments (17) (See Col. 3 lines 45-55) extending in a longitudinal direction from the ferrule (14) (See Col. 2 lines 15-35), the brush head (16) having a width dimension and a thickness dimension in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (vertical direction), with the width dimension being greater than the thickness dimension (See FIG. 2), and each filament (17) having a fixed end secured at the ferrule (11) and an opposite free end longitudinally distant from the ferrule (11) with the free ends of at least a portion of the filaments (17) collectively define a substantially chisel-shaped tip profile in a plane perpendicular (See FIG. 3) to the width dimension such that an apex (34) of the chisel-shaped tip extends across the width of the brush head (18) (See Col. 4 lines 30-45). Regarding claim 4, Marino discloses that every filament (17) in the brush head (16) is tapered from its fixed end to its free end, with the taper of each filament extending over at least 60% of its length (See FIG. 2). Regarding claim 5, Marino discloses that each filament (17) is tapered over at least 75% of its length (See FIG. 2). Regarding claim 6, Marino discloses that each filament (17) is substantially linearly tapered (See FIG. 2). Regarding claim 7, Marino discloses that the thickness of each filament (17) at its fixed end is substantially the same as the thickness of all other filaments (17) (See FIG. 2). Regarding claim 10, Marino discloses that the filaments (17) within the brush head (16) vary in length and at least a portion of the filaments (17) have free ends which stop short of the chisel-shaped tip (34). Regarding claim 11, Marino discloses that filaments (17) of varying length are distributed throughout the width and thickness of the brush head (16) (See FIG. 2). Regarding independent claim 14, Marino discloses a handle (13); a ferrule (11) secured to the handle (11); and a brush head (16) comprising a plurality of synthetic bristle filaments (17) (See Col. 3 lines 45-55) extending in a longitudinal direction from the ferrule (11), the brush head (16) having a width dimension and a thickness dimension in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (vertical direction), with the width dimension being greater than the thickness dimension (See FIG. 2), and each filament (17) having a fixed end secured at the ferrule (11) and an opposite free end longitudinally distant from the ferrule (11) with every filament (17) in the brush head (16) is tapered from its fixed end to its free end, with the taper (34) of each filament extending over at least 60% of its length (See FIG. 2) (See Col. 4 lines 35-45). Regarding claim 15, Marino discloses that each filament (17) is tapered over at least 75% of its length, and preferably over its entire length (See FIG. 2). Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103 2. 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. Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (4,590,637) to Marino. Regarding claim 8, Marino is that the thickness of each filament (17) at its fixed end is in the range of 0.15 to 0.30, preferably in the range of 0.18 to 0.25, and more preferably about 0.23 mm. However, absent criticality in the specification it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of each filament (17) to be at least between 0.15 to 0.30 mm in order to reach optimization for a particular manufacturing objective since such rationale would have been obvious to try. Regarding claim 9, Marino is silent that the thickness of each filament at its free end is in the range of 0.01 to 0.1, and preferably about 0.05 mm. However, absent criticality in the specification it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of each filament (17) to be at least between 0.01 to 0.1 mm in order to reach optimization for a particular manufacturing objective since such rationale would have been obvious to try. Regarding claim 12, Marino is silent regarding that a length of the shortest filaments is 30% to 60% of a length of the longest filaments, each measured from the ferrule to the filament tips. However, absent criticality in the specification it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of the filaments (17) size in range relative to the other in terms of at least 30% in order to reach optimization for a particular manufacturing objective since such rationale would have been obvious to try Regarding claim 13, Marino is silent regarding that the length of the longest filaments is about 90mm and the length of the shortest filaments is about 30 to 40 mm, each measured from the ferrule to the filament tips. However, absent criticality in the specification it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of the filaments (17) size in size of at least 30mm in order to reach optimization for a particular manufacturing objective since such rationale would have been obvious to try. Conclusion 3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, 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. MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS Examiner Art Unit 3723 /MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601106
WIPING SHEET AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING WIPING SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588751
VEHICLE WASHING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590468
POOL RELATED PLATFORM AND ADDED-ON ACCESSORIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582275
CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569103
WET ROBOT CLEANER AND CONTAMINATION PREVENTION MODULE USED THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1081 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month