The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendments received January 21, 2026, amending Claim 1, 2, 5, and 8. Claim 10 was cancelled. New Claims 21 and 22 were added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pole elements” in Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14-16, “pole element” in Claims 1, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19, “innermost pole element” in Claims 1, 2, and 5, “outermost pole element” in Claims 1, 11, 12, and 19, and “first extension element” in Claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1, 2, 4-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo WO 2018/157209 (hereafter Russo) in view of Tait et al. US 2016/0331203 (hereafter Tait et al.) in further view of Miller et al. CA 2743814 A1 (hereafter Miller et al.) and “Screw Drive Systems” prior art date 9/19/2020.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Russo teaches:
1. An extendable cleaning tool (assembly shown in Figure 10) comprising:
a plurality of pole elements (support members 64, 66, 68, 70), wherein the plurality of pole elements include an innermost pole element (fourth support member 70) and an outermost pole element (first support member 64), wherein the innermost pole element is moveable relative to the outermost pole element in an axial direction (telescopically sleeved, Paragraph [0069]) and the innermost pole element and the outermost pole element are not rotatable relative to each other (due to shapes shown in Figures 5 and 6);
a clamp (clamp 44) arranged at an end of the outermost pole element (first support member 64) and configured to selectively engage with a pole element (second support member 66) of the plurality of pole elements arranged within the outermost pole element (Figure 11), and
a working head assembly (cleaning brush 84 and mounting bracket 102) operably coupled to an end of the innermost pole element (Figure 11), the working head assembly comprising:
a head connector (hinge assembly 86) comprising a pivot portion (implement support 100 - labeled in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below) and a connector portion (labeled in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below)(Note: Miller discloses on Page 5 that the labeled “connector portion” includes a projecting insertion element shaped as a splined shaft and extends centrally and backwards from the head. Miller additionally discloses on Page 5 that the labeled “pivot portion” includes an open elongated orifice, shaped to complementarily conform to the splined shaft for capturing the latter with a tight contact), wherein:
one of the pivot portion (implement support 100) and the connector portion comprises a polygonal bore (splined bore of implement support 100 in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below) and the other of the pivot portion and the connector portion (labeled in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below) comprises a polygonal base (splined protrusion of labeled connector portion in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below) configured to be inserted into the polygonal bore (splined protrusion fits into splined bore as shown in provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below):
the polygonal base and the polygonal bore each define a polygon comprising more than four sides (splined shape – see discussion below where a hexagon shape is selected); and
a securing element (as disclosed by Miller et al. on Page 5, the splined shaft and splined bore are dimensioned and manufactured to allow easy attachment and prevent accidentally detachment – therefore, it appears that the parts are secured through a friction fit) which selectively connects the pivot portion to the connector portion, the securing element being manually operable (designed to allow easy attachment and prevent accidental detachment. Miller discloses on Page 6 an embodiment that includes a locking mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a locking mechanism to the splined embodiment if it is found that a separate locking mechanism would be beneficial to prevent accidental detachment);
three axes of rotation (labeled and shown in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below), each of the three axes of rotation being orthogonal to each of the other axes of rotation (shown in position in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below), a first axis (labeled in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below) of the three axes of rotation being coupled to the innermost pole (shown in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below)(also see Miller et al. discussion below);
a water-fed working head (cleaning brush 84 with water supplied through hose 28 to hose fork 82, Figures 10 and 11, and Paragraphs [0057] and [0078]) comprising bristles (bristles of cleaning brush 84 clearly shown in Figures 10 and 11), the working head being directly coupled to a second axis (labeled in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below) of the three axes of rotation, the third axis (labeled in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below) being between the first axis and the second axis (shown in attached zoomed in Figure 11 below)(also see Miller et al. discussion below); and
a hose connector configured to split a head hose into two or more sections (t-shaped hose fork 82 connection, Figure 11), wherein:
a first section of the head hose provides liquid within the bristles of the working head (as shown in Figures 10 and 11, hose fork 82 “is provided to divide the hose fluid flow across both sides of a cleaning brush 84” showing bristles on the side opposite the hose connections – shown in Examiner attached figure below - see discussion below); and
a second section of the head hose provides liquid adjacent the working head (shown in Examiner attached figure below - see discussion below).
Russo discloses in Figure 11 a flexible tube that has a hose fork that divides the hose fluid flow across both sides of a cleaning brush 84. It is arguable that Russo anticipates the current claims, however, Russo does not show any details of the bristle side of the cleaning brush, so it is unclear how Russo’s description of “fluid flow across both sides” is to be interpreted. For the purpose of examination, it appears that the hose is installed in holes that would disperse fluid through the brush head and into an area surrounded by bristles. Therefore, it would be obvious for the liquid to be supplied to a location within the bristles (surrounded by bristles) of the working head as claimed. For clarity, the Examiner has provided a simplified figure below depicting what appears to be taught by Russo.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown, once the liquid leaves the tube it would be expected to disperse through the bristles into sections that are both within and adjacent to surfaces of the working head as claimed since there is not structure that would prevent that random dispersion. Therefore, it appears that the structure of the Russo device discloses liquid being divided and dispensed so that is concurrently provides liquid within the area of the head surrounded by bristles, and therefore within the bristles as claimed, and liquid which will make contact with the bristle mounting surface, and therefore adjacent the surface of the working head as claimed.
The reference Tait et al. US 2016/0331203 discloses an articulated brush head with a supply tube configured to supply liquid to the brush head in a fashion similar to the Russo device. Tait et al. discloses:
“a water-fed working head (cleaning tool 10, Figure 4) comprising bristles (agitation end 74 are bristles, Paragraph [0023]); and
a hose connector (junction 85) configured to split a head hose into two or more sections (tubing 80 and master 20/caps 30), wherein:
a first section (tubing 80 within center of cleaning tool 10, Figure 1) of the head hose provides liquid within the bristles of the working head (Figures 4 and Paragraph [0027] – “In an embodiment, nozzles 90 are also located along a central, internal portion of tubing 80”, which as shown in Figures 1 and 2 – see also Examiner provided Figure 1 below); and
a second section (master 20/caps 30 tubing 80 manifold around perimeter of cleaning tool 10, Figure 1) of the head hose provides liquid adjacent the working head (Figure 1 – see also Examiner provided Figure 1 below).”
PNG
media_image2.png
428
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since Russo does not provide a detailed view of the liquid dispersion in the cleaning head, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rely on prior art references, such as Tait et al., to teach the undisclosed details. In this case, Tait et al. discloses a cleaning head that is visually similar to the Russo device with a fluid supply connected to the handle side of the cleaning head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the cleaning brush 84 and mounting bracket 102 of Russo to be configured with the fluid distribution details taught by Tait et al. where one end of the hose fork is directed to a manifold arranged around the perimeter of the working head such that it directs liquid adjacent to the working head while the second end of the hose fork is directed through the brush head to nozzles inside the bristles of the working head. Therefore, with the modification of Russo in view of Tait et al. the cleaning head would be capable of simultaneous liquid dispersion inside bristles and outside the outer perimeter of bristles adjacent to the working head with the motivation to provide a significant amount of liquid in a fairly uniform dispersion pattern which would be expected to improve the cleaning performance.
Regarding the most recent amendments, Russo discloses the three axes of rotation as claimed when the device is oriented as shown in zoomed in Figure 11 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
826
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that the claimed arrangement is not supported in a scenario where the pole is straight. Additional prior art was searched to find a mechanism that is closer to the Applicant’s design.
The reference Miller et al. discloses:
… three axes of rotation (labeled and shown in attached Figure 17 below), each of the three axes of rotation being orthogonal to each of the other axes of rotation (shown in position in attached Figure 17 below), a first axis (labeled in attached Figure 17 below) of the three axes of rotation being coupled to the innermost pole (shown in attached Figure 17 below); …
… the working head being directly coupled to a second axis (labeled in attached Figure 17 below) of the three axes of rotation, the third axis (labeled in attached Figure 17 below) being between the first axis and the second axis (shown in attached Figure 17 below) …
PNG
media_image4.png
743
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Miller et al. discloses a pivotable knuckle jointed connected to an innermost pole in a fashion similar to Russo. The mating pivotable knuckle is directly connected to a shaft that allows the connection to the working head to be set at a desired angular position in a fashion similar to Russo. Miller et al., however, adds an additional pivotal connection at the shown second axis between the working head and the shaft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Russo device as shown in the Examiner provided figure below in view of the Miller disclosure with the motivation improve the pivotability of the working head in operation. As shown in the obvious modification shown below, the modified device meets the claim language when the knuckle joint is secured with a straight pole configuration.
PNG
media_image5.png
886
982
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding the newly amended claim language, the combined Russo and Miller et al. device discloses an interface between the pivot portion and connector portion as a splined connection allowing the number of angular positions equal to the number of splines. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a practical number of angular positions that would be beneficial to the generic user of the device. That being said, it the reference “Screw Drive Systems” teaches prior art shapes for male/female interfaces that provide torque transmission including both 8 sided or 12 sided serrated splines. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention select any one of the shapes taught by “Screw Drive Systems”, such as a hexagon in this case, with the motivation to provide six positions at 60 degree increments. However, it would have also be obvious to select other regular polygons depending on personal preference for number of head positions.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, Russo teaches:
2. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the working head assembly (cleaning brush 84) includes a pole connector (adapter member 72) configured to engage with the innermost pole element (at connection region 73) and [[a]] the head connector (hinge assembly 86) is configured to engage with the working head (cleaning brush 84)(Figures 8 and 11).
Regarding Claim 4, Russo teaches:
4. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 2, wherein the pole connector (adapter member 72) includes a circular connector (hollow circular region 76) and a non-circular connector (connection region 73)(Figure 8).
Regarding Amended Claim 5, Russo teaches:
5. The extendable cleaning tool of claim [[2]] 1,
Regarding Claim 6, Russo teaches:
6. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 5, wherein the pivot portion (bolt 106 and knob 88) and the connector portion (implement support 100) are releasably attachable with each other (Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Russo teaches:
7. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 5, wherein the connector portion (implement support 100) is configured to be rotated relative to the pivot portion (bolt 106 and knob 88) about a head connector axis (axis of bolt 106 and knob 88).
Regarding Amended Claim 8, Russo teaches:
8. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 7,
Regarding Claim 9, Russo teaches:
9. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 5, wherein the connector portion (implement support 100) includes a connector rotational axis (axis of cylindrical part of implement support 100 as shown in Figure 12) such that an attached working head (cleaning brush 84) is rotatable about the connector rotational axis (cleaning brush can rotate and be secured in at least two positions relative to the implement support 100).
Regarding Claim 11, Russo teaches:
11. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the clamp (clamp 44) includes a lever (cam lever 54) and an adjustment knob (clamping bolt 58) that are engageable and configured to open or close the clamp from engagement with the pole element (support member 68 as shown in Figure 7) of the plurality of pole elements arranged within the outermost pole element (support member 66 as shown in Figure 7)(Paragraph [0073] and Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Russo teaches:
12. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the clamp (clamp 44) defines a bore (bore through clamping portion 48 and collar portion 46) therethrough with a first portion (collar portion 46) configured to engage the outermost pole (with bolts 50 connecting ends 60) and a second portion (clamping portion 48) configured to selectively engage with the pole element (support member 68 as shown in Figure 7) of the plurality of pole elements arranged within the outermost pole element (support member 66 as shown in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Russo teaches:
13. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the clamp (clamp 44) includes at least one pole grip (clamping portion 48 includes a pair of flexibly deformable arms), the pole grip being formed of thermoplastic rubber or thermoplastic elastomer.
As taught in Paragraph [0070], the clamping portion 48 is configured to include a pair of flexibly deformable arms that when the cam lever 54 is clamped squeezes the outer surfaces of the inner pole portion to create a locking friction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermoplastic rubber of elastomer to either form the clamping portion 48 or coat the inside clamping surfaces since it is common knowledge that rubber or elastomer are flexibly deformable and have an increased coefficient of friction which will allow the clamp to secure the inner pole with less clamping force.
Regarding Claim 14, Russo teaches:
14. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein each pole element of the plurality of pole elements (support members 64, 66, 68, 70) has a non-circular cross-sectional geometry (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Russo teaches:
15. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein each pole element of the plurality of pole elements (support members 64, 66, 68, 70) includes at least two lobes (circular arc 36 and 38), wherein each lobe is a continuous curved structure of the material of the respective pole element having a constant radius (Rc and Rt are equal, Paragraph [0063]) of curvature (shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Russo teaches:
18. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, further comprising a pole extension adapter (see discussion below) configured to attach to the outermost pole at an end opposite the end engageable with the working head assembly, wherein the pole extension adapter is configured to connect at least one additional pole element to the outermost pole element.
In Figure 7, Russo shows the connection of two telescoping pole assemblies of allowing the smaller pole elements to project from both ends. Russo does not specifically discuss a pole extension adapter that would allow the connection of a second telescoping pole assemblies, however, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamp 44 to be a pole extension adapter by modifying the clamping portion 48 to receive the outermost pole size instead of the next inside pole size. The modified clamp would then be configured to hold two outermost poles together allowing them to be connected as claimed and as shown in Figure 7.
Regarding Claim 19, Russo teaches:
19. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 18, wherein the pole extension adapter defines a channel (hollow passage through pole elements shown in Figure 9) configured to allow a hose (hose 28) to pass from an exterior area to within the outermost pole element at a location between the outermost pole element and the at least one additional pole element (shown in Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Russo teaches:
20. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the working head assembly (cleaning brush 84 and mounting bracket 102) includes a pole connector (clamping portion 48), a first extension element (connection portion 52), and a head connector (collar portion 46), wherein the first extension element is connected between the pole connector and the head connector (shown in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 21, Russo teaches:
21. (New) The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, further comprising a cone (chamfered end, see discussion below) extending from the polygonal base (splined protrusion of labeled connector portion in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below – further modified to be a hexagon shape as presented in Claim 1), the cone being configured to be inserted into the polygonal bore (splined bore of implement support 100 in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. below – further modified to be a hexagon shape as presented in Claim 1).
It was common engineering design practice at the time of filing to add a chamfer to male shaft end to improve assembly by acting as a leading guide allowing for smoother, faster insertion into mating bores while preventing edge damage and reducing stress concentration. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a chamfer to the end of the splined/hexagon protrusion with the motivation to eliminate a sharp edge and improve assembly. The addition of a chamfer creates a conical end that “extends from the protrusion”. Below is a picture of an actual hexagon shaft with a chamfered end for visualization purposes.
PNG
media_image6.png
600
1200
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Russo teaches:
22. (New) The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the connector portion (labeled in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. above) is configured to rotate relative to the pivot portion (implement support 100 - labeled in Examiner provided figure of Russo modified in view of Miller et al. above) in an increment of degrees which is greater than 0° and less than 90° (splined interface would allow an increment of degrees equal to 360° /the number of splines – this claim is met as long as the number of splines is more than four or is modified by “screw drive systems” to be a hexagon shape as presented in Claim 1 above resulting in a 60° increment).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo WO 2018/157209 (hereafter Russo) in view of Tait et al. US 2016/0331203 (hereafter Tait et al.) as presented in Claim 1 in further view of SyBridge Technologies “Mitigate Stress Concentration With These Design Tips”, January 6, 2021 (hereafter SyBridge Technologies).
Regarding Claim 16, Russo teaches:
16. The extendable cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein each pole element of the plurality of pole elements (support members 64, 66, 68, 70) includes three lobes (labeled in attached Figure 5 below), wherein each lobe is a continuous curved structure of the material of the respective pole element having a constant radius of curvature (see discussion below).
PNG
media_image7.png
775
774
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As shown in original Figure 5, the corners between straight walls 34 and wall arc 36 are shown to be sharp corners. As taught by SyBridge Technologies, it is common design practice to avoid sharp corners that create areas of stress concentration which are weak spots that may result in part failure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to round the sharp corners as taught by SyBridge Technologies, perhaps as depicted in the modified Figure 5 below, with the motivation to eliminate sharp corners that may result in stress cracks without drastically changing the design.
Regarding Claim 17, Russo teaches:
17. (Original) The extendable cleaning tool of claim 16, wherein two adjacent lobes (first and second lobe, see Figure 5 below) of the three lobes (labeled in attached Figure 5 above) are connected by an intermediate section (labeled in attached Figure 5 above), wherein the intermediate section has a different curvature than either of the two connected lobes (shown in attached Figure 5 above).
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed January 21, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) Claims 1, 2, 4-15, and 18-20 under Russo WO 2018/157209 in view of Tait et al. US 2016/0331203 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the rejection has been modified to address the new claim limitations.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner has provided additional figures and discussion within the current rejections that specifically address the Applicant’s arguments by identifying the elements argued as being missing by the prior art.
Detail responses to the Applicant’s arguments follow.
The Applicant argues: “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
(A) In the Office Action, claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly obvious over WO Patent Publication No. 2018/157209 ("Russo") in view of US Patent Publication No. 2016/0331203 ("Tait") and CA Publication No. 2743814 ("Miller"). Office Action at 6. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As per claim 1, the Russo-Tait-Miller combination fails to disclose or suggest each and every feature as claimed. In particular, neither Russo, Tate, nor Miller disclose a "head connector comprising a pivot portion and a connector portion" which define a "polygonal base and [a] polygonal bore [which] each define a polygon comprising more than four sides." At best, Russo discloses implement support 100 (a male connector), which mates with mounting bracket 102 (a female connector) via a four-sided base and a four-sided bore. Russo at FIGS. 11, 12. Tait merely discloses a connector 40 which connects to master 20 via threads or teeth. Tait at [0019]. And Miller discloses a conical projection element 220 which is press fit into open channel 320 and/or blind elongated hole 330. Miller at p. 12, lns. 7-11; p. 13, lns. 1-9; FIGS. 5-9. Because conical projection element 220 defines a "truncated cone"-a three-dimensional geometry-it cannot be said to define a polygon base and/or bore, as required by claim 1.
Furthermore, because conical projection element 220 is press fit into channel 320 and/or blind elongated hole 330, Miller also fails to disclose a "securing element" as required by claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Miller discloses in the Abstract - “The projecting insertion element has the shape of a spindle, a shape similar to a truncated cone or is cylindrical.” The Examiner has selected the splined shaft embodiment (spindle), disclosed on Pages 5 and 6, which employs friction to hold the parts together. Miller additionally discloses an embodiment that employs a locking mechanism. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splined embodiment to employ a locking mechanism similar to that taught in the other embodiment to increase the connection force between the elements. The reference “Screw Drive Systems” discloses multiple prior art solutions for connections that secure two male/female parts. “Screw Drive Systems” discloses both eight and twelve splined solutions as well as other regular polygon solutions. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splined solution with a hexagon, or other polygon shape, with the motivation to provide a desired number of angular positions.
As previously mentioned, Miller discloses “The splined shaft and the internally engaging, frontally open elongated orifice are dimensioned and manufactured adequately with to allow an easy attachment and prevent an accidental detachment of splined shaft.” Therefore, Miller discloses a securing element that appear to be at least friction. It would have also been obvious to modify this splined embodiment to include the locking mechanism taught in another embodiment by Miller with the motivation to improve the resistance to accidental detachment.
The Applicant argues: “Because the Russo-Tait-Miller combination fails to disclose each and every feature of claim 1, Applicant submits that claim 1 is allowable and respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of claim 1. Applicant also submits that claims 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 18-20 are allowable at least for depending from allowable claim 1 and respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection and allow these claims.
(B) In the Office Action, claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly obvious over Russo in view of Tait and further in view of Mitigate Stress Concentration with These Design Tips by SyBridge Technologies. Applicant submits that claims 16-17 are allowable at least for depending from allowable claim 1 and respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections of these claims and allow claims 16-17.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously presented, Claim 1 remains rejected, making these arguments moot.
The Applicant argues: “New Claims
Claims 21-22 are hereby newly added. Claims 21-22 are allowable at least for depending from allowable claim 1. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner allow these claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously presented, Claim 1 remains rejected, making these arguments moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723