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
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/9/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein each of the plurality of bristle fingers is stiff enough to substantially return to an initial position after being deflected by a more than insignificant load” is indefinite. The terms “stiff enough,” “substantially,” and “more than insignificant load” are all relative and subjective terms, giving the claim no standard for interpretation. One having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably interpret the claim with multiple variations of what “stiff enough” or what constitutes as “more than insignificant” load. Therefore, the meet and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined and the claim is indefinite. It will be examined as any mascara brush capable of bristle deflection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brieva et al. (US 6,241,411).
Regarding claim 1, Brieva et al. discloses 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).
Regarding claim 2, 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, 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, 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 5, wherein each of the plurality of bristle fingers is stiff enough to substantially return to an initial position after being deflected by a more than insignificant load (col. 4, lines 10-30).
Regarding claim 7, 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, wherein each of the plurality of bristles comprises a polymeric material (col. 3, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 11, wherein a handle (3) is adjoined to the cosmetic brush unit by a grip (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, the plurality of bristle fingers (18) includes at least four bristle fingers (C, D of Figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, 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, wherein the two substantially non-circular mantle surface portions are substantially straight (20) (C of Figure 6).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the handle is adjoined to the cosmetic brush unit by a closure cap for a cosmetic storage container (see Figure 1).
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) 6, 9, 10, 16, and 17 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).
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 (claim 6); the plurality of bristles has a Shore D hardness in a range from 55 to 85 (claim 9); the at least two twisted wires are made of stainless steel (Brieva et al. teaches metal col. 4, lines 35-45; 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); the plurality of bristles consists of polyamide (claim 16); the plurality of bristles has a shore D hardness in a range from 70 to 85 (claim 17). 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. 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. Further, 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.
Conclusion
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
2/3/2026