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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brieva et al. (US 6,241,411) in view of LaFond (GB 750,509A).
Regarding claim 1, Brieva et al. disclose a cosmetic brush unit comprising a bristle carrier (9) including at least two twisted wires holding a plurality of filaments (18) clamped so that each filament forms a plurality of outwardly extending bristles constituting a brush (8), wherein each of the plurality of bristles has a diameter in a range of 0. 076 mm to 0.3556 mm (col. 3, lines 50-60) and wherein each of the plurality of bristles (25) is divided into a plurality of bristle fingers (23) in a region of free distal ends of the bristles (see Figures 5-7; col. 4, lines 15-25). Brieva et al. disclose the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of bristle fingers carries at its distal end a beard of a plurality of essentially slack strands. LaFond teaches frayed artificial fibers for brush bristles; wherein the brush bristles are made from polyamide (col. 12, lines 15-25) and the plurality of bristles fingers carry at its distal end a beard of slack strands to help with liquid distribution (Figure 3; col. 1, lines 25-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the bristles of Brieva et al. be made from polyamide and be subject to a second fraying leaving a beard of slack strand as taught by LaFond to help with liquid distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Brieva et al. further disclose the length of each of the plurality of bristle fingers represents at least 10% of a total length of the bristle to which each of the plurality of bristle fingers belong (see Figure 7; col. 4, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 3, Brieva et al. further disclose wherein each of the plurality of bristle fingers above their root, separated from each other by substantially V-shaped gaps (gap near 23), extends side by side in diverging directions (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Brieva et al. further disclose wherein each of the plurality of bristle fingers is grouped around a free central space, and wherein a cross-section of the free central space increases continuously in a direction of a distal end of the free central space (see Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, Brieva et al. further disclose wherein each of the plurality of bristle fingers (18) has a substantially rounded, mostly continuously convex in a circumferential direction, mantle surface portion and two substantially non-circular mantle surface portions (outer potions of 18) which meet along a line and diverge towards the substantially rounded mantle surface portion, said mantle surface portions together forming an entire mantle surface (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Brieva et al. disclose wherein each of the plurality of bristles comprises a polymeric material (col. 3, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 9, Brieva et al. and LaFond disclose the claimed invention except for the plurality of bristles has a Shore D hardness in a range from 55 to 85. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to find the parameters of the Shore hardness to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, the brush is made from the same material polyamide which would render a similar hardness.
Regarding claim 10, Brieva et al. teaches the twisted wires have a diameter in a range of 0.40 mm to 0.90 mm (col. 4, lines 35-45); Brieva et al. further state the twisted wires are made from metal (col. 4, lines 35-45). Brieva et al. does not disclose stainless steel. However, the parameters of the metal being stainless steel would be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Regarding claim 11, Brieva et al. disclose wherein a handle (3) is adjoined to the cosmetic brush unit by a grip (see Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to find the parameters of the Shore hardness to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, the brush is made from the same material polyamide which would render a similar hardness.
Regarding claim 13, Brieva et al. disclose the plurality of bristle fingers (18) includes at least four bristle fingers (C, D of Figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, Brieva et al. disclose the length of each of the plurality of bristle fingers represents at least 20% of the total length of the bristle to which each of the plurality of bristle fingers belong (col. 4, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 15, Brieva et al. disclose wherein the two substantially non-circular mantle surface portions are substantially straight (20) (C of Figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Brieva et al. and LaFond disclose the plurality of bristles consists of polyamide (LaFond col. 12, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 17, Brieva et al. and LaFond disclose the claimed invention except for the plurality of bristles has a Shore D hardness in a range from 55 to 85. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to find the parameters of the Shore hardness to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, the brush is made from the same material polyamide which would render a similar hardness.
Regarding claim 18, Brieva et al. disclose wherein the handle is adjoined to the cosmetic brush unit by a closure cap for a cosmetic storage container (see Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that LaFond discloses a brash such as a paintbrush heavy and light precious industrial brushes but fails disclose or suggest brushes designed for cosmetic applications, is not persuasive. LaFond in col. 2, lines 60-65 discloses the use of a cosmetic brush in referring to a shaving brush which is more agreeable to the user in that it holds lather without risk of dribbling and the ends are heavily supple. A shaving brush is known in the art as a cosmetic brush as well as shaving cream.
In response applicant’s arguments that Lafond does not disclose a beard at the ends of the bristle fingers, this argument is not persuasive. Lafond teaches polyamide fibers that undergo two treatments figure 2 shows the synthetic polymer fibers after the first stage of the process performed on part of the machine figure 3 shows the fibers after the second stage of the process performed on machine. One having ordinary skill in the art can see from the figures that the ends of figure 2 are further frayed in the second process to create a beard as shown in figure 3. Col. 3 lines 70-75; “The fibers are then subjected to passage over columns be as previously described in the ends of each fiber, which were conical for a length of several centimeters two or three are divided into five – 10 – 15 and even 20 distinct and extremely supple elements.” Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of LaFond would be able to create a cosmetic brush having each bristle finger at its distal end have a beard of essentially slack strands to allow for further absorption without the risk of dribble.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Brieva et al. and LaFond relate to applicant’s field of endeavor by teaching fraying ends of bristles to help with absorption of product as well as both are cosmetic brushes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights