DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/09/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porges (Ismael Bernard) EP0935974, applicant states:
Ismael does not disclose all of the elements of claim 1. Specifically, Ismael does not disclose, "wherein at least one of said elementary cylindrical tubes comprises a transverse support positioned inside a cylinder of the at least one elementary cylindrical tube, wherein the transverse support has an orifice configured to guide said cylindrical element through the orifice, wherein the tubular telescopic assembly is configured to retract as the cylindrical element is pushed from a proximal end towards a distal end of the tubular telescopic assembly" as recited in claim 1.
The examiner disagrees and his position is in the grounds of rejection below.
The claim amendments overcame the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernard (EP0935974).
Bernard teaches an anti-buckling device for guiding a cylindrical element into an opening of a conduit (this is interpreted as functional language which the of Bernard is fully capable of), the device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
126
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least two elementary cylindrical tubes (for example t3, t4) that are nested and guided mutually in one another to form a tubular telescopic assembly having an axis XX' (longitudinal) and of a given length L,
wherein at least one of said elementary tubes (for example t3) comprises a transverse support (narrowed portion at 4.3) positioned inside a cylinder of the at least one elementary cylindrical tube,
wherein the transverse support has an orifice (inherent) configured to guide said cylindrical element (not positively claimed, see for example 3.1) through the orifice,
wherein the tubular telescopic assembly is configured to retract as the cylindrical element is pushed from the proximal end (generally 5.1) towards a distal end (generally 2.1) of this tubular telescopic assembly. Note, the proximal end and distal end can be reversed and the device will fulfill the language.
PNG
media_image2.png
170
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, referring to figure 4 above, the transverse support (stated above) is positioned at the distal end (distal end is half of the tube) of the elementary cylindrical tube end by which it slides into an adjacent elementary cylindrical tube of larger diameter. This claim is interpreted as a small diameter tube t3 slides into a larger diameter tube t4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Bernard, used in the rejection above, and Douk (2005/00045553) are considered the closes prior art of record.
PNG
media_image3.png
232
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
257
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Bernard and Douk fail to teach all limitations of claim 1 in combination with the limitations of claims 4-13.
Applicant is invited to discuss any prior art if desired.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-4759. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Thursday.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached on 5712729062. 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.
/BRUCE E SNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights