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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 12 (Figure 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both a vehicle (Figure 3 and paragraph 0042) and second embodiment, present invention, and wheel brush (Figure 11 and paragraph 0049). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 5-6 appear to have a typographical error. It is believed that the “s” in the last word of line 5 is meant to be part of the first word of line 6 “electing” to form the word “selecting”.
Claim 1 line 30 “the first end” should be written as “a first end” and later in lines 30-31 “a first end of a cylindrical body” should be written as “the first end of the cylindrical body” (as this has antecedent basis in line 3). Claim 1 lines 32-33 “a cylindrical outer surface of a cylindrical body” should be written as “the cylindrical outer surface of the cylindrical body” (as this has antecedent basis in lines 3-4).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 lines 11-12 recite “…a first plurality of indicator bristles of a second color and third specified length…” This is unclear as there is not a set of bristles recited in the claim that have a second specified length. Is there meant to be another set of bristles recited in the claim?
Claim 5 requires that “…the first pre-defined length and the third pre-defined length are both greater than the second pre-defined length”. However, claim 6 (depends from claim 5) requires that “…the first-predefined length and the second pre-defined length are equal”. It is unclear how the first-predefined length can be both greater than and equal to the second-predefined length.
In lines 2-3 of each of claims 10-11 the method comprises “the further steps, inserted immediately prior to crimping closed the u-channel…” Also, claim 9 from which claims 10-11 includes this limitation in lines 2-3. In claims 10-11 this becomes to be unclear and confusing as to how the method steps recited in all of claims 9-11 can be “inserted immediately prior to crimping closed the u-channel”. For example, once the steps recited in claim 10 are “inserted immediately prior to crimping closed the u-channel” are the steps recited in claim 9 no longer inserted immediately prior to crimping closed the u-channel as the claim requires?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumm, US 4,490,877 in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art and in further view of Bores et al., US 5,455,979.
Regarding claim 1, Drumm ‘877 discloses a method for making a cylindrical rotary tire brush element comprising the steps of: selecting a cylindrical body (body is considered either as 11 or 15, Figures 1 and 3-4, column 1 lines 59 to column 2 line 7) having a first end, a second end, and a cylindrical outer surface (Figure 1, ends at 12 and 12a; alternatively ends of 15); selecting a u-channel with a first end and a second end (27, see Figures); selecting a plurality of cleaning bristles (26); starting at the first end of the u-channel populating a pre-defined length of the u-channel by tightly packing it with the plurality of cleaning bristles having a length (column 2 lines 20-26, dispersed in the channel, see also Figures 5 and 5A); capturing the cleaning bristles in the u-channel using a retention member (wire 28, column 2 lines 25-29; Figures 3 and 5A); crimping closed the u-channel so that the bristles and retention member are permanently captured within the u-channel, creating a u-channel assembly (column 2 lines 29-31; Figure 5A); welding the first end of the populated c-channel assembly to the first end of the cylindrical body (column 2 lines 35-39); and wrapping the u-channel assembly in a tight helix around a cylindrical outer surface of the cylindrical body (column 2 lines 33-35), fully populating the cylindrical outer surface with bristles (Figure 1 and column 1 line 59 to column 2 line 4, column 2 lines 48-52 states “no bristle gap” when sections are joined together). Regarding claim 2, there are steps of inserting a collar into the first end of the cylindrical body (12) and inserting a collar into the second end of the cylindrical body (12a; method discussed in column 1 lines 61-65).
Drumm ‘877 fails to disclose more than one type of cleaning bristles including a first and second plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and first and second lengths in addition to a first plurality of indicator bristles of a second color and a third length.
The applicant refers to known prior art of a rotary tire brush assembly in paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0042 of the specification (pages 6 and 13) and in Figures 2 and 4. Further regarding claim 1, the applicant states that it is known to select a first plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and a first specified length and populating a first pre-defined length of the brush these bristles, then selecting another plurality of bristles of a second/third specified length and then populating a second pre-defined length of the brush by these bristles, and then selecting a second plurality of cleaning bristles of the first color and first specified length and then populating a third pre-defined length of the brush by these bristles to provide a stepped rotary tire cleaning brush (paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0042 of the specification; paragraph 0016 states “there will be a first plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and a first specified length followed by a first plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and a second specified length followed by a second plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and a first specified length followed by a second plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and second specified length…continuing in this alternating sequential fashion”.)
Regarding claim 1 Bores et al. disclose a cylindrical rotary brush element comprising a cylindrical body (12), the brush being formed by a method including steps of selecting a first plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and a first specified length (14, column 5 lines 23-24; Figures 2-3 and 9) and selecting a first plurality of indicator bristles of a second color and a second/third length (16 or 16a-d, Figure 9; column 4 lines 1-5, column 6 lines 26-42, column 9 lines 11-17). The selected first plurality of cleaning bristles are arranged in a first specified length of the cylindrical brush, the first plurality of indicator bristles of a second color and second/third specified length are populated in a second specified length of the cylindrical brush, and a second plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and first specified length are populating a third pre-defined length of the cylindrical brush (Figure 9). Bores et al. teaches that this bristle arrangement to provide a visual cue to a user of the remaining life of the bristles (column 3 lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of making a cylindrical rotary tire brush element of Drumm ‘877 by selecting a first plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and first specified length, populating a first pre-defined length by packing the first plurality of cleaning bristles of the first color and first specified length, selecting another plurality of bristles of a second/third specified length, populating a second pre-defined length of the brush with the another plurality of bristles of the second length, selecting a second plurality of cleaning bristles of the first color and first specified length and populating a third pre-defined length with the second plurality of cleaning bristles of the first color and first specified length, as the Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches in order to provide a tire cleaning brush with a stepped outer bristle structure suitable for cleaning tires. Further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selected plurality of bristles of a second/third specified length by Drumm modified by the Applicant’s admitted prior art, to be of a second indicator color, as Bores et al. teach, to serve as a visual indicator allowing a user or operator to see when the bristles are worn.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumm, US 4,490,877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, and Bores et al., US 5,455,979 as applied to claim 2 in view of Drumm, US 5,358,311.
Drumm ‘877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, and Bores et al. disclose a method of making a cylindrical rotary tire brush as set forth above, however fail to disclose a step of making intermediate welds of the u-channel to the cylindrical outer surface, positioned between the first and second ends of the cylindrical body.
Drumm ‘311 teaches a method for making a cylindrical rotary brush (Figures 1, 10, 11) that includes steps of selecting a cylindrical body having a first end, a second end, and a cylindrical outer surface (Figure 11), selecting a u-channel with a first end and a second end (41), selecting cleaning bristles (42), starting at the first end of the u-channel populating a length of the u-channel by packing it with the plurality of cleaning bristles (channel receives bristle mat 42, column 5 line 64 to column 6 line 4), capturing the cleaning bristles within the u-channel using a retention member (wire 47), crimping closed the u-channel so that the bristles and retention member are permanently captured within the u-channel, creating a u-channel assembly (column 2 lines 8-10 and column 6 lines 4-7, via rollers 60 in Figure 18), welding a first end of the populated c-channel assembly to the first end of the cylindrical body (at 46, Figure 17), and wrapping the u-channel assembly in a helix around a cylindrical outer surface (Figure 10). Regarding claim 3, Drumm ‘311 teaches a step of making intermediate welds of the u-channel to the cylindrical outer surface, positioned between the first and the second end of the cylindrical body (at 46, see Figures ) to secure more locations along the length of the u-channel to the cylindrical outer surface (Figures 12 and 17-19; column 5 lines 9-13, 58-62).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for making a cylindrical rotary tire brush of Drumm ‘877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, and Bores et al. to further include a step of making intermediate welds of the u-channel to the cylindrical outer surface, as Drumm ‘311 teaches that providing such welds allows for more spots along the length of the u-channel to be secured and retained along the cylindrical outer surface.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumm, US 4,490,877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, Bores et al., US 5,455,979 and Drumm, US 5,358,311 as applied to claim 3.
Drumm ‘877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, Bores et al., and Drumm ‘311 disclose a method for making a cylindrical rotary tire brush as discussed above. None of Drumm ‘877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, Bores et al., and Drumm ‘311 explicitly teach that the second pre-defined length is sufficient to allow the first plurality of indicator bristles to complete at least one turn around the cylindrical body.
Regarding claim 4: Drumm ‘877 teaches that the bristles complete many turns around the cylindrical body (Figures 1 and 5). Also regarding claim 4, Bores et al. the plurality of indicator bristles (16 or 16a-16d) comprise a small second pre-defined length compared to the other bristles (14) but appear to be around a circumference of the cylindrical body, or in other words forming one turn around the cylindrical body (embodiment of Figure 9). Regarding claim 5, Bores et al. also shows that a first pre-defined length and the third pre-defined length (when combined) are both greater than the second pre-defined length (see Figure 9, a pre-defined length of bristles 14 along the axis of the body 12 form a first-predefined length and a third pre-defined length on either side of indicator bristles 16a).
Regarding claims 7-8, Drumm ‘877 discloses that in its method of making a cylindrical rotary brush that the u-channel assembly is wrapped around the cylindrical outer surface until the second end of the u-channel reaches the second end of the cylindrical body (column 2 lines 32-41, when the body is 15) and includes a step of welding the second end of the populated u-channel assembly to a second end of the cylindrical body (both ends are welded, column 2 lines 32-41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for making a cylindrical rotary tire brush of Drumm ‘877, the Applicant’s admitted prior art, Bores et al., and Drumm ‘311 so that the second pre-defined length is sufficient to allow the first plurality of indicator bristles to complete at least one turn around the cylindrical body as Bores et al. teaches that having the first plurality of indicator bristles completing at least one turn around the cylindrical body sufficiently allows a user to visualize the indication of those bristles as the body rotates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests claims 6 and 9-11 as best understood. The prior art does not disclose that the first pre-defined length and second pre-defined length are equal. Also the prior art does not disclose the method steps set forth in claim 9 requiring the selecting of, populating of, and capturing of: a first plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and a second specified length and a third plurality of cleaning bristles of a first color and first specified length; these method steps occurring immediately prior to crimping closed the u-channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0332955 to Lin et al. teach a helically wound brush (Figure 2) of multiple groups of bristles (12, 13) mounted in a u-channel (11, Figure 3) with a retention member (21). Lin et al. do not disclose indicator bristles or method steps where the u-channel is welded to a cylindrical body. DE 202009009608 to Guntner (see also English translation) also teaches a helically wound brush on a cylindrical body (see Figures) and includes bristles (5.1) mounted in a u-channel (204) with a retention member (9, Figure 4d). Like Lin et al., Guntner also does not disclose indicator bristles or method steps where the u-channel is welded to a cylindrical body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights