DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on May 12, 2026. Claims 5-8, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 28 and 43 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained and discussed further below. Claims 5-11, 13-22, 24, 28, 29 and 43 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “other mechanical fastener that extends through both the grip and a sidewall of said inner tube” (as in claim 13), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 5-11, 13-22, 24 and 29 are Finally 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 5 discloses, “said pole apparatus sized and configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool”. However, it is unclear what size is configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool. In other words, since swimming pools are not all formed from the same size? Would a pole sized for cleaning a 10 foot deep pool also be able to clean a deeper pool, for example a 20 foot deep pool? Does the pole have to clean every portion of the pool in order to be configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool? For example, if a pole was used in a shallow end of the pool, does it meet this limitation? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 13 discloses, “other mechanical fastener that extends through both the grip and a sidewall of said inner tube”. However, it is unclear how the fastener extends through the grip. In other words, does the fastener extend completely through the grip? Does it extend through a portion of the grip (i.e. a sidewall of the grip)? If so, where is this shown or described in the Specification? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this claims as merely requiring a fastener that attaches a grip to a tube. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 14 and 17 discloses, “said assembled intermediate and inner and outer tubes suitably sized configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool”. However, it is unclear what size is configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool. In other words, since swimming pools are not all formed from the same size? Would a pole sized for cleaning a 10 foot deep pool also be able to clean a deeper pool, for example a 20 foot deep pool? Does the pole have to clean every portion of the pool in order to be configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool? For example, if a pole was used in a shallow end of the pool, does it meet this limitation? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation "said collar" in Line 8 thereof. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 also discloses, “said tube being keyed to said collar”. However, it is unclear which tube is being keyed. Is it the intermediate tube? This claim previously required “at least one of an outer tube or an intermediate tube having a collar”. Thus, it is unclear which tube is being referred to in this claim.
Claim 20 discloses, “said pole apparatus sized to facilitate cleaning a swimming pool”. However, it is unclear what size is configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool. In other words, since swimming pools are not all formed from the same size? Would a pole sized for cleaning a 10 foot deep pool also be able to clean a deeper pool, for example a 20 foot deep pool? Does the pole have to clean every portion of the pool in order to be configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool? For example, if a pole was used in a shallow end of the pool, does it meet this limitation? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 10, 14, 15, 20, 28, 29 and 43 are Finally rejected As Best Understood under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Margid (6749227, i.e. the reversed configuration, as described in Column 4, Lines 6-15), McClasky (6343568) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claim 5, As Best Understood, Martinez discloses a telescoping pole apparatus (10), including:
said pole apparatus being sized and configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool (since all the structural limitations have been met, tool portion 32 [or any other tool as seen in Figures 5-7] is/are capable of being used in removing material [i.e. toys, noodles, rafts, debris, sticks, etc.] from at least a portion [i.e. upper surface of water] of a swimming pool);
an outer tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said outer tube having structure (i.e. hole 24, which is equivalent to the “structure” as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) for removably attaching a tool (32);
an inner tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below);
an intermediate tube (see figure below) slidably interposed between said inner and outer tubes (Column 3, Lines 63-65), said intermediate tube having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said intermediate tube slidably received in the first end of said outer tube (Figure 4);
said second end of said inner tube being slidably received in the first end of said intermediate tube (because it will be slidable with respect to the intermediate tube in the same manner as the intermediate tube is slidable with respect to the outer as shown in Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martinez lacks,
said intermediate tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent;
said intermediate tube also being keyed to said inner tube to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole; and
a series of detent holes positioned along a length of said inner tube, said selectively actuatable detent including a pin element configured to selectively engage with one of said detent holes.
However, Margid teaches (i.e. in the embodiment described in Column 4, Lines 6-15, which is the reverse configuration of the tubes, as shown in Figure 1, such that outer most tube 18 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the inner most tube in the reverse configuration and inner most tube 20 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the outer most tube in the reverse configuration with intermediate tube 22 receiving inner most tube 18 therein and extends within outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes including;
at least one of intermediate tube (i.e. tube 22 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) or an outer tube (i.e. outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) with a respective collar (38) associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent (at 50 or at 50/26, Figure 4); and
a series of detent holes (30) positioned along a length of said inner tube (Column 4, Lines 40-42), said selectively actuatable detent including a pin element (at 50 or at 50/26) configured to selectively engage with one of said detent holes (Figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes including the intermediate tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping tubes with the respective collars associated therewith, each of said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent including a pin element configured to selectively engage with the series of detent holes positioned along a length of said inner tube, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that adjustably and selectively locks the adjustable pole through a plurality of discrete lengths (Column 1, Lines 11-13 and Column 4, Lines 25-30) and which is simpler to use and inexpensive to make (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
Next, McClasky teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes/poles (e.g. 12L, 12M 12U, Figure 1) that are respectively keyed (i.e. from the triangular outer surface and the triangular inner surface of each tube) to each other to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole (see Figures 1 and 2 and Column 4, Lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping keyed tubes, as taught by McClasky, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents relative rotation between various telescoping poles thereby reducing the likelihood of adjacent ill-fitting sections and also reduces maintenance requirements (Column 1, Lines 51-53 and Column 2, Lines 45-47).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 85), then Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
In reference to claims 10 and 29, Martinez disclose that said inner tube has a thickened wall portion (see figure below) formed within the interior of the inner tube (note, each tube includes the thickened wall portion) around at least a portion of said inner tube’s cross-sectional profile and extending along the length (at least partly) of said inner tube.
PNG
media_image2.png
313
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 14, Martinez discloses a telescoping pole apparatus (10), including:
an outer tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said outer tube having structure (i.e. hole 24, which is equivalent to the “structure” as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) for removably attaching a tool (32);
an inner tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below);
an intermediate tube (see figure below) slidably interposed between said inner and outer tubes (Column 3, Lines 63-65), said intermediate tube having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said intermediate tube slidably received in the first end of said outer tube (Figure 4);
said second end of said inner tube being slidably received in the first end of said intermediate tube (because it will be slidable with respect to the intermediate tube in the same manner as the intermediate tube is slidable with respect to the outer as shown in Figure 4),
said assembled intermediate, inner and outer tube suitably sized and configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool (since all the structural limitations have been met, tool portion 32 [or any other tool as seen in Figures 5-7] is/are capable of being used in removing material [i.e. toys, noodles, rafts, debris, sticks, etc.] from at least a portion [i.e. upper surface of water] of a swimming pool).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martinez lacks,
said outer tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent;
said intermediate tube being keyed to said outer tube to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole; and
said intermediate tube having a plurality of detent holes positioned to engage with said selectively actuatable detent of said outer tube’s collar.
However, Margid teaches (i.e. in the embodiment described in Column 4, Lines 6-15, which is the reverse configuration of the tubes, as shown in Figure 1, such that outer most tube 18 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the inner most tube in the reverse configuration and inner most tube 20 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the outer most tube in the reverse configuration with intermediate tube 22 receiving inner most tube 18 therein and extends within outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes including;
at least one of intermediate tube (i.e. tube 22 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) or an outer tube (i.e. outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) with a respective collar (38) associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent (at 50 or at 50/26, Figure 4); and
a series of detent holes (30) positioned along a length of said intermediate tube (Column 4, Lines 40-42), said selectively actuatable detent including a pin element (at 50 or at 50/26) configured to selectively engage with one of said detent holes (Figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes including the outer tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping tubes with the respective collars associated therewith, each of said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent configured to selectively engage with the series of detent holes, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that adjustably and selectively locks the adjustable pole through a plurality of discrete lengths (Column 1, Lines 11-13 and Column 4, Lines 25-30) and which is simpler to use and inexpensive to make (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
Next, McClasky teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes/poles (e.g. outer tube 12L, intermediate tube 12M and inner tube 12U, Figure 1, all of which can be reversed, as previously taught by Margid) that are all respectively keyed (i.e. from the triangular outer surface and the triangular inner surface of each tube) to each other to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole (see Figures 1 and 2 and Column 4, Lines 35-40),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify all of the telescoping tubes including the intermediate tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping keyed tubes, as taught by McClasky, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents relative rotation between various telescoping poles thereby reducing the likelihood of adjacent ill-fitting sections and also reduces maintenance requirements (Column 1, Lines 51-53 and Column 2, Lines 45-47).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 85), then Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
In reference to claim 15, Margid disclose including a detent (at 50 or at 50/26) on said first end of said intermediate tube and a series of corresponding selectable holes (30) along said inner tube (Column 4, Lines 40-42), said detent on said locking device in the second end of the intermediate tube selectably engaging one of said holes along said inner tube (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 20, Martinez discloses a telescoping pole apparatus (10), including:
said pole apparatus being sized and configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool (since all the structural limitations have been met, tool portion 32 [or any other tool as seen in Figures 5-7] is/are capable of being used in removing material [i.e. toys, noodles, rafts, debris, sticks, etc.] from at least a portion [i.e. upper surface of water] of a swimming pool);
at least two additional tubes (i.e. first inner tube 22 and second intermediate tube 22, see figure below) telescopingly assembled with said outer tube and with each other to facilitate the telescoping of the tubes' lengths, to permit selection of a desired length of said pole;
said second intermediate tube slidingly engaged with said first tube (Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martinez lacks,
at least a first one of said tube tubes containing a selectively actuatable detent;
at least a second one of said tubes containing a series of holes along its length;
said second tube and said first tube keyed to each other to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole; and
said detent of said first tube selectively engageable with one of said series of holes along the length of said second tube.
However, Margid teaches (i.e. in the embodiment described in Column 4, Lines 6-15, which is the reverse configuration of the tubes, as shown in Figure 1, such that outer most tube 18 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the inner most tube in the reverse configuration and inner most tube 20 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the outer most tube in the reverse configuration with intermediate tube 22 receiving inner most tube 18 therein and extends within outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes including at least one of intermediate tube (i.e. tube 22 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) or an outer tube (i.e. outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) with a respective collar (38) associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent (at 26, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes including the first and second tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping tubes with the respective collars associated therewith, each of said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent engageable with one of said series of holes, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that adjustably and selectively locks the adjustable pole in a desired length (Column 1, Lines 11-13) and which is simpler to use and inexpensive to make (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
Next, McClasky teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes/poles (e.g. outer tube 12L, intermediate tube 12M and inner tube 12U, Figure 1, all of which can be reversed, as previously taught by Margid) that are all respectively keyed (i.e. from the triangular outer surface and the triangular inner surface of each tube) to each other to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole (see Figures 1 and 2 and Column 4, Lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify all of the telescoping tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping keyed tubes, as taught by McClasky, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents relative rotation between various telescoping poles thereby reducing the likelihood of adjacent ill-fitting sections and also reduces maintenance requirements (Column 1, Lines 51-53 and Column 2, Lines 45-47).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 85), then Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
In reference to claim 28, Martinez discloses a telescoping pole apparatus (10), including:
said pole apparatus being sized and configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool (since all the structural limitations have been met, tool portion 32 [or any other tool as seen in Figures 5-7] is/are capable of being used in removing material [i.e. toys, noodles, rafts, debris, sticks, etc.] from at least a portion [i.e. upper surface of water] of a swimming pool);
an outer tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said outer tube having structure (i.e. hole 24, which is equivalent to the “structure” as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) for removably attaching a tool (32);
an inner tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below);
an intermediate tube (see figure below) slidably interposed between said inner and outer tubes (Column 3, Lines 63-65), said intermediate tube having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said intermediate tube slidably received in the first end of said outer tube (Figure 4);
said second end of said inner tube being slidably received in the first end of said intermediate tube (because it will be slidable with respect to the intermediate tube in the same manner as the intermediate tube is slidable with respect to the outer as shown in Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martinez lacks,
said intermediate tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent;
means (i.e. detent holes) acting between said outer tube and said intermediate tube to permit selective engagement of said tubes with each other at a desired longitudinal position to partially set the length of said apparatus;
means (i.e. detent holes) acting between said inner tube and said intermediate tube to permit selective engagement of said tubes with each other at a desired longitudinal position to partially set the length of said apparatus; and
said intermediate tube also being keyed to said inner tube to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole.
However, Margid teaches (i.e. in the embodiment described in Column 4, Lines 6-15, which is the reverse configuration of the tubes, as shown in Figure 1, such that outer most tube 18 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the inner most tube in the reverse configuration and inner most tube 20 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the outer most tube in the reverse configuration with intermediate tube 22 receiving inner most tube 18 therein and extends within outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes including;
at least one of intermediate tube (i.e. tube 22 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) or an outer tube (i.e. outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) with a respective collar (38) associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent (at 50 or at 50/26, Figure 4); and
a series of detent holes (30) positioned along a length of said inner tube (Column 4, Lines 40-42), said selectively actuatable detent including a pin element (at 50 or at 50/26) configured to selectively engage with one of said detent holes (Figures 3 and 4). The examiner notes that the detent holes can be located on any or all of the tubes, of Martinez, thereby meeting limitation of the means acting between the outer tube and the intermediate tube and between the inner tube and the intermediate tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify all of the telescoping tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping tubes with the respective collars associated therewith, each of said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent including a pin element configured to selectively engage with the series of detent holes/means positioned along a length of the sliding tubes, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that adjustably and selectively locks the adjustable pole through a plurality of discrete lengths (Column 1, Lines 11-13 and Column 4, Lines 25-30) and which is simpler to use and inexpensive to make (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
Next, McClasky teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes/poles (e.g. 12L, 12M 12U, Figure 1) that are respectively keyed (i.e. from the triangular outer surface and the triangular inner surface of each tube) to each other to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole (see Figures 1 and 2 and Column 4, Lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping keyed tubes, as taught by McClasky, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents relative rotation between various telescoping poles thereby reducing the likelihood of adjacent ill-fitting sections and also reduces maintenance requirements (Column 1, Lines 51-53 and Column 2, Lines 45-47).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 85), then Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
In reference to claim 43, Margid also discloses that said grip (15) is attached to a first end (upper end of 18) of the inner tube (i.e. 18 and note while Figure 1 shows element 18 as being an outer tube, Margid also teaches that the poles can be configured in an opposite configuration, see Column 4, Lines 6-15).
Claims 6-9, 11, 21 and 22 are Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Margid (6749227, i.e. the reversed configuration, as described in Column 4, Lines 6-15), McClasky (6343568), Fenstemaker (2010/0192738) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claim 6, Martinez as modified by Margid disclose that at least one of said intermediate tube (i.e. 22 of Margid) or said outer tube (i.e. 20, in the reverse configuration of Margid ) includes a selectively actuatable detent (i.e. at 50 or at 50/26 of Margid), but lacks,
said intermediate tube and said outer tube include an internal twist lock device acting therebetween, for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figure 1) including an intermediate tube (40) and an outer tube (36), said intermediate tube and said outer tube include an internal twist lock device (i.e. the locking mechanism 46, see paragraphs 26 and 30) acting therebetween (Figure 3b) for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify one of the intermediate tube and the outer tube, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing an intermediate tube and an outer tube with the internal twist locking device, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that may be used to more effectively configure the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraphs 26 and 30).
In reference to claim 7, Martinez as modified by Margid disclose that at least one of said intermediate tube (i.e. 22 of Margid) or said outer tube (i.e. 20, in the reverse configuration of Margid ) includes a selectively actuatable detent (i.e. at 50 or at 50/26 of Margid), but lacks,
said intermediate tube and said outer tube include an internal twist lock device and a cam lock device acting therebetween, for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figure 1) including an intermediate tube (40) and an outer tube (36), said intermediate tube and said outer tube include an internal twist lock device (i.e. the locking mechanism 46, see paragraphs 26 and 30) and a cam lock device (54, paragraph 30) acting therebetween (Figure 3b) for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify one of the intermediate tube and the outer tube, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing an intermediate tube and an outer tube with the internal twist locking device and the cam lock device, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that may be used to more effectively configure the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraphs 26 and 30).
In reference to claim 8, Martinez as modified by Margid disclose that at least one of said intermediate tube (i.e. 22 of Margid) or said outer tube (i.e. 20, in the reverse configuration of Margid ) includes a selectively actuatable detent (i.e. at 50 or at 50/26 of Margid), but lacks,
said intermediate tube and said outer tube include a cam lock device acting therebetween, for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figure 1) including an intermediate tube (40) and an outer tube (36), said intermediate tube and said outer tube include a cam lock device (54, paragraph 30) acting therebetween (Figure 3b) for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify one of the intermediate tube and the outer tube, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing an intermediate tube and an outer tube with the cam lock device, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that may be used to more effectively configure the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraphs 26 and 30).
In reference to claim 9, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
an inner tube with reinforcement means formed within the interior of the inner tube extending along its length.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube (i.e. tube 32/40, again the configuration of the tubes can be reversed as previously taught by Margid) with reinforcement means (60) formed within the interior of the inner tube extending along its length (Figures 3a and 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube with the reinforcement means, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having shock absorbing structure thereby more effectively reducing shock to the user during normal operation (see paragraph 31).
In reference to claim 11, as previously discussed above Margid teaches of providing the outer tube with a selectively actuatable detent (i.e. at 50 or at 50/26) and also as previously discussed above Fenstemaker teaches of providing an intermediate tube (i.e. 40) and said outer tube (36) with a compression locking device (10) acting therebetween (Figure 3b) for selectively setting the lengthwise position of those two tubes with respect to each other. Since, both are locking mechanisms it would be obvious to use either a selectively actuatable detent locking mechanism or a compression locking mechanism depending on the particular needs of the user.
In reference to claim 21 and 22, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
at least two of said additional tubes having a friction locking element that does not use interference/detent engagement for engaging two of said tubes to temporarily prevent telescoping action between those two tubes.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least two additional telescoping tubes (30 and 32) having a friction locking element (46) that does not use detent engagement for engaging two of said tubes to temporarily prevent telescoping action between those two tubes (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tubes, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing tubes including the friction locking element, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that may be used to more effectively configure the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraph 26) and/or that more effectively provides a secure connection between the tubes (see paragraph 35).
Claims 13 and 16 are Finally rejected As Best Understood under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Margid (6749227, i.e. the reversed configuration, as described in Column 4, Lines 6-15), McClasky (6343568), Heathcock et al. (6925686) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claims 13 and 16, As Best Understood, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a grip attached to an inner tube by at least one of a rivet, screw or other mechanical fastener.
However, Heathcock et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a grip (12, Figure 1) that is attached (i.e. with male section 20 including a similar/identical element to boss 40 , which is not labeled in Figure 5 but is labeled in Figure 2 and discussed at Column 5, Lines 43-47) to an inner tube (16, especially since the tubes can be inner or outer tubes as previously taught by Margid) by at least one of a rivet, screw or other temporary mechanical fastener (i.e. boss 40, Figures 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing a grip that is attached to an inner tube by at least one of a rivet, screw or other mechanical fastener, as taught by Heathcock et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a grip that more effectively interlocks with an adjacent pole section (Column 5, Lines 47-49).
Claim 17, is Finally rejected As Best Understood under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Margid (6749227, i.e. the reversed configuration, as described in Column 4, Lines 6-15), Hatcher (8061751) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claim 17, As Best Understood, Martinez discloses a telescoping pole apparatus (10), including:
said assembled intermediate and inner and outer tubes suitably sized and configured for use in cleaning a swimming pool (since all the structural limitations have been met, tool portion 32 [or any other tool as seen in Figures 5-7] is/are capable of being used in removing material [i.e. toys, noodles, rafts, debris, sticks, etc.] from at least a portion [i.e. upper surface of water] of a swimming pool);
an outer tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said outer tube having structure (i.e. hole 24, which is equivalent to the “structure” as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) for removably attaching a tool (32);
an inner tube (see figure below) having first and second ends (see figure below);
an intermediate tube (see figure below) slidably interposed between said inner and outer tubes (Column 3, Lines 63-65), said intermediate tube having first and second ends (see figure below), said second end of said intermediate tube slidably received in the first end of said outer tube (Figure 4), said second end of said intermediate tube slidably received in the first end of said outer tube (because it will be slidable, as shown in Figure 4), and said second end of said inner tube being slidably received in said first end of said intermediate tube (because it will be slidable, as shown in Figure 4);
PNG
media_image1.png
720
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martinez lacks,
at least one of said first end of said outer tube and said intermediate tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent;
said second end of said tube slidably received within said collar;
a series of detent holes positioned to be engaged with said selectively actuatable detent of said collar;
said intermediate tube being keyed to said collar to limit relative rotation of the collared tube and said tube slidably received within said collar with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole.
However, Margid teaches (i.e. in the embodiment described in Column 4, Lines 6-15, which is the reverse configuration of the tubes, as shown in Figure 1, such that outer most tube 18 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the inner most tube in the reverse configuration and inner most tube 20 [i.e. in Figure 1] is the outer most tube in the reverse configuration with intermediate tube 22 receiving inner most tube 18 therein and extends within outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes including;
at least one of intermediate tube (i.e. tube 22 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) and an outer tube (i.e. outer most tube 20 in the reverse configuration, Column 4, Lines 14-15) with a respective collar (38) associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent (at 50 or at 50/26, Figure 4); wherein a second end (i.e. upper end of 22) of said tube is slidably received within said collar (Figures 1 and 2); and
a series of detent holes (30) positioned along a length of said inner tube (Column 4, Lines 40-42), said selectively actuatable detent including a pin element (at 50 or at 50/26) configured to selectively engage with one of said detent holes (Figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes including the intermediate tube and the outer tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping tubes with the respective collars associated therewith, each of said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent including a pin element configured to selectively engage with the series of detent holes positioned along a length of said inner tube, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that adjustably and selectively locks the adjustable pole through a plurality of discrete lengths (Column 1, Lines 11-13 and Column 4, Lines 25-30) and which is simpler to use and inexpensive to make (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
Next, Hatcher teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an intermediate tube (14) that is keyed (i.e. from 54 engaging with 52, Figure 2) to a collar (30 being keyed again at 52) to limit relative rotation of the collared tube and said tube slidably received within said collar with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole (Column 4, Line 56-Column 5 Line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the intermediate tube and the collar, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing an intermediate tube that is keyed to the collar, as taught by Hatcher, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents the handle inner shaft from rotating relative during normal operation (Column 5, Lines 4-6).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 85), then Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
Claims 18 and 19 are Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Margid (6749227, i.e. the reversed configuration, as described in Column 4, Lines 6-15), Hatcher (8061751), Fenstemaker (2010/0192738) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claim 18, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
an inner tube with reinforcement means formed within the interior of the inner tube extending along its length.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube (i.e. tube 32/40, again the configuration of the tubes can be reversed as previously taught by Margid) with reinforcement means (60) formed within the interior of the inner tube extending along its length (Figures 3a and 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube with the reinforcement means, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having shock absorbing structure thereby more effectively reducing shock to the user during normal operation (see paragraph 31).
In reference to claim 19, Fenstemaker discloses that a first end (i.e. lower end thereof in Figure 1) of an intermediate tube (i.e. tube 30) and a second end (i.e. upper end thereof in Figure 1) of an inner tube (i.e. tube 32) are selectively engageable with each other via a twist-locking device (34).
Claim 24, is Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Margid (6749227, i.e. the reversed configuration, as described in Column 4, Lines 6-15), McClasky (6343568), Heathcock et al. (6925686), Pangborn (2007/0204435) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claim 24, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a grip attached to the inner tube by at least one screw.
However, Heathcock et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a grip (12, Figure 1) that is attached (i.e. with male section 20 including a similar/identical element to boss 40 , which is not labeled in Figure 5 but is labeled in Figure 2 and discussed at Column 5, Lines 43-47) to an inner tube (16, especially since the tubes can be inner or outer tubes as previously taught by Margid) by at least one of a rivet, screw or other temporary mechanical fastener (i.e. boss 40, Figures 2 and 5).
In addition, Pangborn also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a grip (10/12) to another implement (which could be a pole/tube) by using any fastener including screws (see paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the grip attached to a tube by a screw, as taught by Heathcock et al. and Pangborn, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a grip that more effectively interlocks/joins with another implement (see Column 5, Lines 47-49 Heathcock et al. and paragraph 18 of Pangborn).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 12, 2026 respect to amended claim 17, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn and a new rejection is provided above.
Applicant's other arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “Before addressing those rejections further, Applicant respectfully notes that the Examiner has not mentioned or given any weight to the substantial objective evidence of non-obviousness that was reviewed extensively in the prosecution (and eventual issuance, following PTAB decision) of two parent patent applications within the current family of Applicant's patents and applications. Applicant respectfully submits that the same evidence that supported allowance and issuance of those parent patent claims likewise supports issuance of the claims pending in this application.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has reviewed the documents provided and note that they are not sufficient in outweighing the obviousness rejections above because the evidence supported in the prior applications are not directed to the same rejection as included above. Similarly, the PTAB decision also relied upon references not used in the rejection above. Thus, while the evidence has been reviewed, it is the examiner’s opinion that such evidence is not sufficient in outweighing the obviousness rejection provided above. Since, all of the limitations of the claim have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant added various structural limitations to various claims including detent holes (claims 5, 14 and 28), the keying of the tubes with respect to each other (claims 14 and 20), and with respect to a collar (as in claim 17).
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights