Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (KR 20180106179).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses;
A watercolour brush, comprising;
a handle (Fig. 3, 14);
a bundle of brush hairs (Fig. 3, 20);
and a ferrule (Fig. 3, 11) that connects one of the ends of the handle (Fig. 3, 14) with an upper part (Fig. 3, 12) of the bundle of brush hairs (Fig. 3, 20), the ferrule including at least one through hole (Fig. 3, 13), that connects the upper part (Fig. 3, 12) of the bundle of brush hairs (Fig. 3, 20) with an exterior for entry of water inside the ferrule (Fig. 3, 11), said water being absorbed by the upper part (Fig. 3, 12) of the bundle of brush hairs (Fig. 3, 20).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Jung discloses;
wherein the ferrule (Fig. 3, 11) further comprises a series of lines with holes (see annotated Fig. 3 below depicting the series of lines with holes).
`
PNG
media_image1.png
990
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 2, Jung discloses;
Wherein the series of lines with holes are arranged in a zigzag configuration (see annotated Fig. 3 depicting the zigzag configuration); between one line of holes and an immediately subsequent line of holes.
PNG
media_image2.png
990
1056
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 20180106179).
Regarding claim 4, in additions to the limitations in claim 2, Jung is silent regarding;
wherein the through holes increase in size as they move away from a tip of the bundle of brush hairs and towards the handle.
Instead, Jung indicates that the through holes remain the same size as they move away from the tip of the brush. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the size of the through holes as they move away from a tip of the bundle of brush hairs and towards the handle because the Applicant has not disclosed that increasing the size of the through holes apart provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Jung’s brush and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the hole sizing taught by Jung or the claimed hole sizing because both through hole dimensions would perform the same function of allowing water to enter the through holes to wet the brush. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 5, in additions to the limitations in claim 3, Jung is silent regarding;
wherein the through holes increase in size as they move away from a tip of the bundle of brush hairs and towards the handle.
Instead, Jung indicates that the through holes remain the same size as they move away from the tip of the brush. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the size of the through holes as they move away from a tip of the bundle of brush hairs and towards the handle because the Applicant has not disclosed that increasing the size of the through holes apart provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Jung’s brush and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the hole sizing taught by Jung or the claimed hole sizing because both through hole dimensions would perform the same function of allowing water to enter the through holes to wet the brush. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. US Patent 3030649 is directed to the state of the art of watercolour brushes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYANT K HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-8630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571)-270-3735. 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.
/B.K.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights