DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 20, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on October 20, 2025. Claims 5-11 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 24, 28, 29 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 rejection is maintained. Claims 5-11, 13-22, 24, 28, 29 and 43 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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, 20-22 and 24 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said collared tube…” in Line 3, of the last paragraph of claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is also unclear which one of the “at least one of said intermediate tube or said outer tube” is said collared tube because claim 5 discloses in the alternative that, “at least one of said intermediate tube or said outer tube having a collar associated therewith… said collared tube also being keyed to the respective tube slidably received therein to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole”. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as actually disclosing, “at least one of said intermediate tube or said outer tube having a collar associated therewith… said [collard] outer tube also being keyed to [the respective tube] said intermediate [collard] tube slidably received therein to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole”. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said (a) tube…, said (b) tube… in the last paragraph of claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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, 17, 20, 28, 29 and 43 are 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 claims 5 (As Best Understood) and 17, 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) above) 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,
at least one of said intermediate tube or said outer tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent; and
said [collard] outer tube also being keyed to [the respective tube] said intermediate [collard] tube slidably received therein 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 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, 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, 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. 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.
[AltContent: textbox (Thickened wall portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
398
158
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) above) 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,
at least one of said intermediate tube or said outer tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent;
said [collard] outer tube also being keyed to [the respective tube] said intermediate [collard] tube slidably received therein to limit relative rotation of those tubes with respect to each other around a longitudinal axis of the pole; and
said inner tube also being keyed to said intermediate 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 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, 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, 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 the 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 20, As Best understood, Martinez discloses a telescopic pole (10), including an outer tube (upper 22) having first and second ends (see figure previously shown above), said second end having structure (i.e. hole 24, which is equivalent to the “structure” as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above) for removably attaching a tool (32), at least two additional tubes (middle or intermediate tube 22 and lower most or inner tube 22) telescopingly assembled with said outer tube and with each other to facilitate the selection of a desired length of said pole (Figure 1).
Martinez lacks,
at least one of the outer tube or said additional tubes containing a selectively actuatable detent selectively engageable with one of a series of holes along the length of another of said additional tubes; and
at least one of said intermediate tube or said outer tube containing a selectively actuatable detent; and
said [collard] outer tube also being keyed to [the respective tube] said intermediate [collard] tube slidably received therein 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) 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, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing the telescoping tubes with the selectively actuatable detent, 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. 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 28, Martinez discloses an apparatus (the examiner notes that the limitation “for cleaning swimming pools and similar bodies of water” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 ), the 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) above) 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,
at least one of said intermediate tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent; and
said intermediate tube 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 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, 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, 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 the 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 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, 7, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are 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), Hsieh (6854916), 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 26 of Margid), but lacks,
said collar containing the [required] keyed relationship of the intermediate tube or said outer tube; and
the other of the intermediate tube or said outer tube including an internal twist locking device.
However, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figures 7 and 8) including an intermediate tube (40) and an outer tube (30), wherein a collar (60) contains a same keyed relationship (i.e. at 622) as said intermediate tube and said outer tube (Figure 7).
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 collar, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing the collar containing the same keyed relationship as said intermediate tube and said outer tube, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having enhanced strength in an extended state and/or which also avoids accidental or unintentional pressing of the retaining pins (Column 4, Lines 54-59).
Furthermore, 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 (32) and an outer tube (30) with an internal twist locking device (i.e. the locking mechanism [see paragraph 26], as shown in 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 one of the intermediate tube or the outer tube, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing an intermediate tube or 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 paragraph 26).
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 26 of Margid) and cam lock device (i.e. at 54, paragraph 35), but lacks,
said collar containing the [required] keyed relationship of the intermediate tube or said outer tube; and
the other of the intermediate tube or said outer tube including an internal twist locking device.
However, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figures 7 and 8) including an intermediate tube (40) and an outer tube (30), wherein a collar (60) contains a same keyed relationship (i.e. at 622) as said intermediate tube and said outer tube (Figure 7).
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 collar, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing the collar containing the same keyed relationship as said intermediate tube and said outer tube, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having enhanced strength in an extended state and/or which also avoids accidental or unintentional pressing of the retaining pins (Column 4, Lines 54-59).
Furthermore, 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 (32) and an outer tube (30) with an internal twist locking device (i.e. the locking mechanism [see paragraph 26], as shown in 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 one of the intermediate tube or the outer tube, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing an intermediate tube or 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 paragraph 26).
In reference to claims 9 and 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 11, as previously discussed above Margid teaches of providing the outer tube with a selectively actuatable detent (i.e. 26), Hsieh previously taught of the collar (60) containing a same keyed relationship (i.e. at 622) as said intermediate tube and said outer tube and also as previously discussed above Fenstemaker teaches of providing an intermediate tube (i.e. 32) with a compression locking device (10). 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 15, Martinez as modified by Fenstemaker disclose that there is a locking device (i.e. the locking mechanism [see paragraph 26], as shown in Figures 3a and 3b) in the second end of intermediate tube (i.e. at 30, again because the orientation can be reversed, as previously taught by Margid and includes multiple sections, Figure 1).
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).
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).
Claim 8, is 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), Hsieh (6854916) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
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 26 of Margid), but lacks,
said collar containing the [required] keyed relationship of the intermediate tube or said outer tube.
However, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figures 7 and 8) including an intermediate tube (40) and an outer tube (30), wherein a collar (60) contains a same keyed relationship (i.e. at 622) as said intermediate tube and said outer tube (Figure 7).
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 collar, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing the collar containing the same keyed relationship as said intermediate tube and said outer tube, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having enhanced strength in an extended state and/or which also avoids accidental or unintentional pressing of the retaining pins (Column 4, Lines 54-59).
Claims 13 and 16 are 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) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claims 13 and 16, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a grip attached by at least one of a rivet, screw or other temporary attachment device.
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 a section of a pole (i.e. at section 16) by at least one of a rivet, screw or other temporary attachment device (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 the grip attached by at least one of a rivet, screw or other temporary attachment device, 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 24, is 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 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 a section of a pole (i.e. at section 16) by at least one of a rivet, screw or other temporary attachment device (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 another implement 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 with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (6883208) also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (Figure 2) including an intermediate tube (20) and an outer tube (10), wherein a collar (30) contains a same keyed relationship (see outer surface of 10 and 20 and the inner surface of 30 being the same) of the intermediate tube or said outer tube (Figure 2).
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