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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Response filed on January 5, 2026. No claims 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. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed January 5, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 11-20 and specifically pertaining to the arguments directed to previous teaching references Kratish, Kozinski, and Shallcross, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is provided herewith and discussed in greater detail below. Claims 11-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 11, is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, it discloses “second adapter” however this limitation should be disclosed as “a second adapter” in order to prevent any confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation “the universal handle being modular and having a second shaft, the first shaft having a coupling end configured to couple with the first and the second receiving bores of the first and the second adapters.” in Lines 19-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first shaft” limitation in the claim. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as actually disclosing; “the universal handle being modular and having a second shaft, a first shaft having a coupling end…”. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 12, 16 and 19 are rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen (6446483) in view of Latoria (2011/0000273), Gutierrez et al. (ES 1078426, translation included herewith), Paratore (2020/0187633) and optionally further in view of Shuzo (JP 2002112867, translation included herewith).
In reference to claim 11, As Best Understood, Ericksen discloses a pipe bender assembly (10), comprising:
a first pipe bender head (12, Figure 1); and
a universal handle (18, Figure 1), wherein the universal handle includes a first shaft (18), the first shaft having a coupling end (i.e. formed as the external threads on lower end of 18, not shown but disclosed in Column 2, Lines 38-43, which meet the limitation of the threaded coupling end, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5a in the previous non-final office action) configured to couple with internal threads of a socket (16) of the pipe bender head (12).
Ericksen lacks,
an assembly of a plurality of pipe benders adapters including;
a first adapter having a first mating section that is cylindrical and having a first adapter end that is threaded and dimensioned to couple to a first coupling bore of the first pipe bender head, and the first adapter having a second mating section having a first receiving bore that is threaded and dimensioned to couple with the universal handle; and
a second adapter having a first coupling section that is cylindrical and having a second adapter end that is narrower than the first adapter end of the first adapter and threaded and dimensioned to couple to the second coupling bore of the second pipe bender head having a smaller bore size than the first pipe bender head, and the second adapter having a second coupling section having a second receiving bore having a same size as the first receiving bore of the first adapter;
a second pipe bender head having a smaller coupling bore size than the coupling bore of the first pipe bender head; and
the universal handle being modular and having a second shaft, a first shaft having a coupling end configured to couple with the first and the second receiving bores of the first and the second adapters.
However, Latoria teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide;
an assembly of a plurality of pipe bender heads (see smaller pipe bender head in Figure 6 and paragraph 49 and a larger pipe bender head in Figure 7 and paragraph 50);
wherein the larger pipe bender head (see Figure 7) includes a first adapter (318, Figure 7) having a first adapter end (see figure below) that is threaded (paragraph 50) and dimensioned to couple to a first coupling bore (i.e. the bore surrounding 318) of the first pipe bender head (Figure 7);
wherein the smaller pipe bender head (see Figure 6) includes a second adapter (220, Figure 6) having a second adapter end (see figure below) that is narrower (because it is smaller) than the first adapter end of the first adapter (see “Difference between First adapter end and Second adapter end” in the annotated figure below);
wherein a second pipe bender head (i.e. smaller pipe bender head in Figure 6) has a smaller coupling bore size than the coupling bore of the first pipe bender head (because the bore surrounding 220 is smaller than the bore surrounding 318, see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 pipe bender assembly including the single pipe bender head, of Ericksen, with the known technique of providing a pipe bender assembly including the plurality of pipe benders adapters for engagement with the plurality of variously sized pipe bender heads, respectively, as taught by Latoria, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that is adaptable to bend different sizes and types of conduits (paragraphs 36, 49 and 50).
In addition, Gutierrez et al. which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (i.e. providing adapters for handles, see Figures 18-25) and further teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an adapter (“adaptor” see Figure 18, similar to the larger adapter 318, of Latoria) having a first mating section (see figure below) that is cylindrical (Figure 18) and having a first adapter end (see figure below) that is threaded (see following portion of Abstract for disclosing; “thread adapter for coupling to…”) and dimensioned to couple to a first coupling bore (see figure below) of a tool head (see figure below), and the first adapter having a second mating section (see figure below) having a first receiving bore (see figure below ) that is threaded and dimensioned to couple with a universal handle (see figure below), wherein the universal handle has a second shaft (see figure below) and a first shaft that includes a coupling end (i.e. lower end thereof in Figure 18) configured to couple with a receiving bore of an adapter (Figures 18-25).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner also notes that the second smaller adapter 220, as previously taught by Latoria, could be modified with the adapter, as taught by Gutierrez et al., wherein the second smaller adapter would similarly include a first coupling section that is cylindrical and having a second adapter end (i.e. similar to the “First mating section/First adapter end” of the first adapter in the figure above) that is narrower than the first adapter end of the first adapter (i.e. because 220 is smaller than 318) and threaded and dimensioned to couple to the second coupling bore (i.e. bore surrounding 220) of the second pipe bender head (Figure 6 of Latoria) having a smaller bore size than the first pipe bender head (again as previously taught by Latoria, in Figures 6 and 7), and the second adapter having a second coupling section having a second receiving bore (i.e. similar to the “First receiving bore” of the first adapter in the figure above) having a same size as the first receiving bore of the first adapter because the same size of handle is taught by Gutierrez et al. (see figure above), thereby allowing the same handle, as taught by Latoria, to be used.
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 each of the adapters, of modified Ericksen, with the known technique of providing the threaded adapter, as taught by Gutierrez et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that easily and quickly attaches a handle to a tool head as needed by the user (see portion of translation disclosing, “Taking a look at the market, there seems to be no “floor scraper with thread adapter” accessory that can be attached to brooms, mops or any cleaning tool easily and quickly, and that also combines comfort, simplicity, safety and functionality.”).
Furthermore, Paratore which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (i.e. providing modular handles) further teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a modular universal handle (200a-200d) having multiple shafts (200a-200e) including a first shaft (formed at 200b or at 200d Figure 2) and a second shaft (200c), the first shaft having a coupling end (435) configured/capable to couple (because it has external threads) with the first and the second receiving bores of the first and the second adapters, as previously taught by Latoria and Gutierrez et al. (see paragraph 25 and 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 handle, of Ericksen, with the known technique of providing a modular handle having the first and second shafts, as taught by Paratore, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a handle that can be adjusted to various different lengths, thereby providing the ability to change the overall length of tool to accommodate various different applications (paragraph 25).
Optionally, assuming arguendo that the combination above lack,
the second adapter having a second coupling section having a second receiving bore having a same size as the first receiving bore of the first adapter, than Shuzo is also used for such a teaching.
Shuzo teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a plurality of threaded adapters (5, Figure 3), each having different sized first coupling sections (i.e. at threaded shafts 3a, 3b and 3c respectively, Figure 3 and see following portion of translation disclosing; “The dimensions of one thread part (male thread part) (3A) (3B) (3C) used between the shower head and the shower head hose, which are the two parts, are different from each other.”) and a second coupling section including a second receiving bore (i.e. at 4) having a same size as a first receiving bore of the first adapter because all adapters (5) have the same receiving bore (4) for engagement with handle (2, Figure 3 and see following portion of translation disclosing; “where the sizes of the screw parts on one side to be interposed and use between the two parts are different from each other and the sizes of the screw parts of the other side are common”).
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 second coupling section of the second adapter, of modified Ericksen, with the known technique of providing an adapter comprising a second coupling section having a second receiving bore having a same size as a first receiving bore of a first adapter, as taught by Shuzo, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device providing adapters that more effective screw/connect various parts together (see following portion of translation; “An adapter is used not only for a shower head and a hose but also between two or three parts to be screwed together for the same reason.”) thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
In reference to claim 12, Paratore discloses that the second shaft (200c) of the universal handle has a connecting end (435) to couple with a coupling socket (205c) of the first shaft (i.e. 200d) of the universal handle (Figure 2 paragraph 25).
In reference to claim 16, Paratore discloses that the first shaft (i.e. 200b) is configured to retract inside the second shaft (200c) through a telescoping mechanism (see Figures 1, 3a and 3b and paragraph 25).
In reference to claim 19, Gutierrez et al disclose that the adapter is metallic (see claim 3 disclosing, “It is necessary to insist that the materials to be used at the time of manufacture can be diverse, such as: high density plastics, metal, the combination of both or any other type of material.” ).
Claims 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen (6446483) in view of Latoria (2011/0000273), Gutierrez et al. (ES 1078426, translation included herewith), Paratore (2020/0187633), optionally in view of Shuzo (JP 2002112867, translation included herewith) and further in view of Burns (11206915).
In reference to claim 13, Ericksen discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the first shaft of the universal handle is connected to the second shaft of the universal handle by a first hinge configured to allow the first shaft to rotate and fold on the second shaft, and a third shaft of the universal handle connected to the second shaft by a second hinge.
However, Burns teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a modular foldable handle including a first shaft (54) that is connected to a second shaft (53) by a first hinge (55) configured to allow the first shaft to rotate and fold on the second shaft, and a third shaft (52) connected to the second shaft by a second hinge (56).
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 handle, of Ericksen, with the known technique of providing the modular foldable handle having first and second shafts, as taught by Burns, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a foldable handle that allows a user to more store the device in smaller areas or locations (see Abstract).
In reference to claim 14, Burns discloses that the folded first shaft and the second shaft are configured to rotate about the second hinge such that a coupling end (i.e. end of first shaft connected to hinge 55) of the first shaft lies on the third shaft (see Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 15, Burns discloses that the third shaft is connected to a fourth shalt (49) by a third hinge (51) such that the first and the second shafts are configured to rotate and fold on the fourth shaft (Figures 3 and 4).
Claim 17, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen (6446483) in view of Latoria (2011/0000273), Gutierrez et al. (ES 1078426, translation included herewith), Paratore (2020/0187633), optionally in view of Shuzo (JP 2002112867, translation included herewith) and further in view of Harrington et al. (WO 2022094168, previously cited).
In reference to claim 17, Ericksen discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the second shaft of the universal handle has an adjusting end for receiving bent pipes.
However, Harrington et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second shaft (1302, Figure 13B) of a modular universal handle (Figure 13B) with an adjusting end (i.e. formed as opening 1320 within end 1318 of the handle, which meets the limitation of the adjusting end, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5b in the prior non-final office action) for/capable of receiving bent pipes (paragraph 137) because it has met all the structural limitations.
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 a second shaft, of Ericksen, with the known technique of providing a second shaft with the adjusting end, as taught by Harrington et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile handle that can receive various hoses, tubes or other conduits therein as needed by the user (paragraph 137).
Claim 18, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen (6446483) in view of Latoria (2011/0000273), Gutierrez et al. (ES 1078426, translation included herewith), Paratore (2020/0187633), optionally in view of Shuzo (JP 2002112867, translation included herewith) and further in view of Meinzer et al. (2014/0137338).
In reference to claim 18, Ericksen discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the plurality of pipe bender adapters and the universal handle configured to be stored in a portable casing.
However, Meinzer et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a portable case (200) for holding a plurality of modular components (paragraph 35).
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 assembly, of Ericksen, with the known technique of providing the portable case, as taught by Meinzer et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile assembly that can be more easily stored when not in use (see paragraph 35) and transported as need by a user.
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen (6446483) in view of Latoria (2011/0000273), Gutierrez et al. (ES 1078426, translation included herewith), Paratore (2020/0187633), optionally in view of Shuzo (JP 2002112867, translation included herewith) and further in view of D'Gerolamo (4425784).
In reference to claim 20, Ericksen discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the universal handle being metallic.
However, D'Gerolamo teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar pipe bending tool including a handle (2) that is metallic (Column 2, Lines 57-64).
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 handle, of Ericksen, with the known technique of providing the metallic handle, as taught by D'Gerolamo, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile handle having increased strength thereby extending the useful life of the tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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
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