Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/679,396

APPLICATOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shya Hsin Packaging Industry (China) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 1194 resolved
-15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1256
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1194 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 1-20 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 1, states “target points are respectively provided on sections of at least two of the bristles”; however, it is unclear what “target points” are. Are the target points the outermost surrounding surface or specific points along the outer surface. The specification provides no further guidance to determine what constitutes as “target points” the claim will be examined as any point along the outer surface of the bristle as being a target point. 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) 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schreiber et al. (US 12,226,009). Schreiber et al. discloses an applicator, comprising a brush rod (12), wherein M rows of bristles are arranged on the brush rod; the bristles (82; Fig. 5 or 109; Fig. 7) each comprise a first end (81) fixedly connected to the brush rod, and a second end (85) being a free end; the second end of the bristle extends toward a direction away from the brush rod; there are N bristles in each row of bristles; target points (84) are respectively provided on sections of at least two of the bristles; the target points are located on a same spiral line (Fig. 8); and the first ends of the bristles in a same row are located in a same axial direction of the brush rod, M≥2, N≥2, and M and N each being an integer (see Figure 5-8; col. 8, lines 50-65). PNG media_image1.png 365 579 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 2, bristles (14) on the same spiral line (Fig. 8) comprise at least a first bristle and a second bristle; the first bristle belongs to an i-th row of bristles; and the second bristle belongs to a j-th row of bristles (Fig. 8). Claim 3, target points (102 or 84) are respectively provided on sections of the bristles in the same row, and the target points are located on the same spiral line (see Figure 8). Claim 4, target points (102) are respectively provided on sections of all of the bristles, and the target points are located on the same spiral line (see Figures 7 and 8). Claim 5, comprising at least two spiral lines, wherein a first group of target points are provided on sections of first bristles in the M rows of bristles; the first group of target points are located on a first one of the at least two spiral lines; a second group of target points are provided on sections of second bristles in the M rows of bristles; and the second group of target points are located on a second one of the at least two spiral lines (see spiral lines on Figure 8). PNG media_image2.png 544 788 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 6, different spiral lines have a same pitch (see Figure above). Claim 8, a side of the bristle comprises at least a curved surface and/or a twisted surface (see Figure above). Claim 9, comprising a brush handle (7), wherein the brush rod (6) comprises a first end fixedly connected to the brush handle, and a second end being a free end; and the second end of the bristle (20) inclines toward the second end of the brush rod (see Figure 13; embodiment with bristles rotated). Claim 11, the bristles (20) in the same row have a same inclination angle toward the second end of the brush rod (see Figure 13). Claim 13, the bristle is a sheet structure, and an upper surface of the bristle is shaped as at least one of a petaloid structure with two small ends and a large middle, a polygonal structure, a semi-petaloid structure, and a notched petaloid structure (see Figures 5 and 7). Claim 14, a sectional area of the first end of the bristle is greater than a sectional area of the second end of the bristle (see Figure 5). Claim 15, there are at least two types of the bristles; different types of the bristles have different features; and the features of the bristles comprise at least one of a hardness, a color, a shape and a size (col. 13, lines 30-35). Claim 17, there are H types of the bristles; and the H types of the bristles comprise at least two types of bristles having different hardnesses, H≥2, and H being an integer (col. 13, lines 30-35). Claim 18, the bristles in the same row have a same hardness, and the bristles in two adjacent rows have different hardnesses (i.e. stacked bristles col. 13, lines 30-35). Claim 19, a connecting line for the second ends of the bristles in the same row comprises at least one of a linear segment and a curve (see Figure 8). Claim 20, the connecting line for the second ends of the bristles in the same row comprises at least one of a raised arc, a recessed arc, a tailing peak, a leading peak, a multi-peak shape and an inverted V shape (see Figures 5-8). 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) 7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrieber et al. (US 12,226,009). Schrieber et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the spiral line has a pitch of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm; an inclination angle between a central axial section P of the bristle and a radial section Q of the brush rod is β, 1°<β<5°; and the bristles in two adjacent rows have different inclination angle towards the second end of the brush rod. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the spiral line has a pitch of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm; an inclination angle between a central axial section P of the bristle and a radial section Q of the brush rod is β, 1°<β<5°; and the bristles in two adjacent rows have different inclination angle towards the second end of the brush rod, since applicant has not disclosed that the pitch and angle and inclination angle of the bristles, solves a particular problem and the optimal range would be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber et al. (US 12,226,009) in view of Pires et al. (US 9,854,895). Schreiber et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the bristles are a two-color injection molded plastic piece, a three-color injection molded plastic piece or a three-dimensional (3D) printed plastic piece. Pires et al. teach a cosmetic applicator having bristles with a two-color injected molded pieces and bristles with different hardnesses (col. 5, lines 40-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the bristles of Schreiber et al. be made from different colors and different hardness as taught by Pires et al. to allow for application processes or different tactile feel for the user. 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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 12/9/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599215
HAIR CLIP CONVERTIBLE COMB
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589020
CURETTE TOOL AND NAIL CARE METHOD USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588745
ROLLER STRUCTURE WITH ADJUSTABLE DIAMETER AND HAIR-TANGLING PREVENTION FUNCTION, AND HAIR CURLER THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588724
HAIR WEFT AND PREPARATION PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569056
SPIRAL COSMETIC APPLICATOR WITH DOWNWARD FACING MICROCOMBS
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
55%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+25.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1194 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