The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 19-34 in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “apparatus” in Claims 19-34, “plurality of elements” in Claims 19, 21-26, 28-29, and 32-34, “component” in Claims 19 and 32-34, “means to move fluid” in Claim 20, “means to move air” in Claim 21, “heating means” in Claims 25 and 26, “mechanical movement means” in Claim 29, “sanitizing means” in Claim 30, “means for collecting or removing” in Claim 31, “heating means” in Claim 31, “condensing means” in Claim 31, “chemical means” in Claim 31, “mechanical means” in Claim 31, “input means” in Claim 34, and “output means” in Claim 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 19 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wrbican US 3,393,412 (hereafter Wrbican).
Regarding Claim 19, Wrbican anticipates:
19. (New) A filament bracing and manipulating apparatus (paint brush cleaner), comprising at least:
a base (bottom plate 3); and
a plurality of elements (needles 6);
wherein:
each of the plurality of elements extend from the base such that a longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of elements are substantially perpendicular to a top surface of the base (Figure 1);
at least a portion of the plurality of elements engages with filaments (brush bristles) of a component (paint brush – P);
the plurality of elements is structured (with pattern as shown in Figure 3 and extended length as shown in Figure 1) and arranged to brace the filaments (with screen body 2 further constraining displacement), whereby the engagement of the at least the portion of the plurality of elements with the filaments restricts displacement of the filaments and prevents distortion of the filaments caused by at least one of: heat and forced air (arrangement shown in Figures 1-3 will be immune to distortion and displacement by at least heat); and
at least a portion of the filaments are substantially parallel to the plurality of elements when the at least the portion of the plurality of elements are engaged with the filaments (best shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 30, Wrbican anticipates:
30. (New) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein:
the apparatus (paint brush cleaner) further comprises a sanitizing means (paint solvent S) for sanitizing the filaments (brush bristles); and
the sanitizing means comprises at least one of: irradiation; heat induced sanitization; and contact with antimicrobial materials (contact with paint solvent S which is antimicrobial).
Regarding Claim 31, Wrbican anticipates:
31. (New) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein:
the apparatus (paint brush cleaner) further comprises a means for collecting (container 9) or removing substances (barbs 7) from the filaments (brush bristles); and
the means for collecting or removing substances comprises at least one of: sonic vaporisation; heating means; condensing means; chemical means; capillary action; mechanical means (barbs 7 are mechanical, container 9 is mechanical); and electrolysis of water wherein the elements act as electrodes.
Regarding Claim 32, Wrbican anticipates:
32. (New) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the apparatus (paint brush cleaner) further comprises:
a second set of a plurality of elements (wires forming fine mesh metal wire screen 2) separate from the first set of the plurality of elements (needles 6); and
a blocking component (mesh wire of screen 2) configured to block fluid (screen has an “open area” the non-open area will block flow) from flowing towards the first set of the plurality of elements (selected) or the second set of the plurality of elements (not selected) such that fluid is forced to only flow towards the unblocked set of the plurality of elements (needles 6).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrbican US 3,393,412 (hereafter Wrbican).
Regarding Claim 29, Wrbican teaches:
29. (New) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein:
the apparatus (paint brush cleaner) further comprises a mechanical movement means (handle member 5 will allow paint solvent S fluid to be agitated inside container 9 as shown in Figure 3) for shaking, agitating, oscillating, or vibrating the plurality of elements (needles 6); and
the mechanical movement means comprises at least one of: electromagnetically induced movement; electrically induced movement; acoustically induced movement; and electrostatically induced movement (see discussion below).
Wrbican discloses a paint brush cleaner that allows a user to agitate the paint solvent inside the container by manually actuating the handle member 5. Wrbican does not disclose that the mechanical movement is automated with the cited movements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the manual actuation with a movement included by an electrical component such as a motor or actuator, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding Claim 33, Wrbican teaches:
33. (New) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein:
the component (paint brush – P) is a brush;
each of the plurality of elements (needles 6) comprises a prong (barbs 7); and
at least one of: each of the plurality of elements and the base (bottom plate 3) are fabricated of thermally conductive material (see discussion below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material that is compatible with the paint solvent S and rigid enough to provide the bristle scrubbing as shown in Figure 1, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. That being said, any plastic or metal material will have at least some amount of thermal conductivity meeting the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrbican US 3,393,412 (hereafter Wrbican) in view of Brackett et al. US 2002/0050280 (hereafter Brackett et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Wrbican teaches:
20. (New) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein:
the apparatus (paint brush cleaner) further comprises a means to move fluid (handle member 5 will allow paint solvent S fluid to be agitated inside container 9 as shown in Figure 3); and
the means to move fluid comprises at least one of: convection; a fan; a turbine; a jet; a blower; a pump; electrically induced fluid movement; pressure differential induced fluid movement; electromagnetically induced fluid movement; and magnetically induced fluid movement (see discussion below).
Wrbican discloses a paint brush cleaner that allows a user to agitate the paint solvent fluid inside the container by manually actuating the handle member 5. The reference Brackett et al. discloses a paint brush cleaner configured with a container 2 for holding a paint solvent and tubes/needles 18 that project and separate bristles in a fashion similar to the needles 6 taught by Wrbican. Brackett et al. additionally discloses the pressurization of a solvent that is pumped into manifold 4 and dispersed through the tubes/needles directly into the bristles for removing paint from inside the brush. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needles of the Wrbican device to include tubular needles and a pump as taught by Brackett with the motivation to electrically induce fluid movement with a pump into the interior of the brush bristles as a way of improving the cleaning operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-28 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of brush cleaners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723