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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (2,905,282) in view of Cromartie (2011/0021094).
CLAIM 15
PNG
media_image1.png
370
83
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, i.e., a method of deploying a tool 41, comprising uncoiling a bistable reelable composite member 10 from a stable coiled form Fig. 6 to a stable elongate slit tube form Fig. 5 in which form the bistable reelable composite member 10 is resiliently biased resilient , the method comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
349
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
531
137
media_image3.png
Greyscale
connecting a tool head 41 to an end of the stable elongate slit tube Fig. 7; and using the tool with the stable elongate slit tube 10 serving as a handle Fig. 5 by which a use may manipulate the tool head, except for the tool to comprise plural interchangeable tool heads which can interchangeably be connected to the handle.
Cromartie teaches a push pole for a boat, wherein the handle 16 adapted to receive different tool heads Figs. 2A-2H. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Miller with tool heads as taught by Cromartie to diversify the tool in adapting the tool for other applications.
Regarding claim 16, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the method of claim 15, further comprising stowing the tool after use by:
disconnecting the tool head from the stable elongate slit tube 10;
opening the bistable reelable composite member at a slit @30, 32, Fig. 6 to a flat form at an end of the bistable reelable composite member Fig. 6; and
progressively coiling the bistable reelable composite member to assume a compact form Fig. 6 for storing the handle. Please note all reference characters and Figs. refer to the base reference unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 18, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the method of claim 15, comprising changing the tool head for another, different tool head modified by Cromartie.
Claims 1-3, 11, 13 and 14 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (2,905,282) in view of Cromartie (2011/0021094) and Riggen et al. (2015/0101459 “Riggen”).
Miller meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a tool spike 41 comprising:
tool head 41; and
a handle 10, wherein an end of the handle is connectable to the tool head @38, wherein the handle comprises a bistable reelable composite member collapsible tubular semi-rigid rod having a first stable form in the form of an elongate slit tube Fig. 5 in which form the bistable reelable composite member 10 is resiliently biased and acts
PNG
media_image6.png
490
191
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as a handle to manipulate the spike when connected to the tool head 41, and wherein when separated from the tool head, the elongate slit tube can be opened out at a slit at an end Fig. 6 and progressively coiled around an axis transverse to its length to reversibly attain a second stable form in the form of a coil 02:47&58, except for the tool to comprise plural interchangeable tool heads which can interchangeably be connected to the handle and for the composite member to be made from laminated layers of fiber embedded in a matrix.
PNG
media_image7.png
463
372
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
531
137
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cromartie teaches a push pole for a boat, wherein the handle 16 adapted to receive different tool heads Figs. 2A-2H. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Miller with tool heads as taught by Cromartie to diversify the tool in adapting the tool for other applications.
Miller modified by Cromartie discloses the claimed invention except for the use of the specific materials.
PNG
media_image9.png
187
515
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Riggen teaches carbon fiber wrench assembly with wrenches having a portion thereof made from materials including laminated carbon fibers with reinforced epoxy matrix [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Miller and Cromartie with tools and handles comprising carbon fiber as taught by Riggen to harden the tool for longevity and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re
PNG
media_image10.png
280
126
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Miller modified by Cromartie and Riggen) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the tool head 41 has a socket 34 for receiving the end of the bistable reelable composite member Fig. 7.
Please note all reference characters and figure numbers refer to the base reference unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 2, wherein the end of the bistable reelable composite member 10 positively locks in the socket via collar 35.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, comprising a housing cylindrical body of 41, the housing having an outer diameter slightly larger than the handle 10 adapted so that the bistable reelable composite member can coil around it at least capable of when decoupled. Note that limitations from specification are not read into the claim.
PNG
media_image11.png
163
203
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the bistable reelable composite member 10 has a surface adapted for one of gripping handle for tool head 41 by a user and wear resistance.
Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1,wherein the bistable reelable composite member 10 is constructed so as to resist bending moments and torsion along its length without buckling simi-rigid construction.
Claims 4-9 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to 3 above, further in view of White (10,478,949 “White”).
PNG
media_image12.png
370
511
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, Miller modified by Cromartie and Riggen) meets all of the limitations of claim 4, i.e., the tool of claim 3, wherein the socket defined by recess 34 has walls that support Fig. 7 of the bistable reelable composite member to prevent movement relative to each other in order to stabilize the bistable reelable composite member, except for the socket to have walls to also support the inner surface of the member.
White teaches a means of support a tool head 201 has a socket 230 for receiving a handle defined by 202, wherein the socket 230 has walls 253, 230A that support both inner @226 and outer surfaces respectively of the handle 202.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Miller with the socket as taught by White for an alternative means of positively and securely locking the handle within the tool head.
PNG
media_image13.png
161
552
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
163
555
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
181
440
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, PA (prior art, Miller modified by White) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 4, wherein the walls of the socket have engagement features 255, 230B White that guide the bistable reelable 10 composite member into a locking position in the socket Fig. 20 White.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of any of claim 5, wherein the socket 230 White has one or more latches 253, 255 for engaging with a corresponding feature 226, 225 in the end of the bistable reelable composite member 10 to prevent the bistable reelable composite member being removed from the socket.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 6, wherein the latch 253 is movable by a user of the tool against a resiliently bias via 257 from an engagement position Fig. 22 in which it engages with the corresponding feature 226 in the end of the bistable reelable composite member 10 to a release position Fig. 23 in which the bistable reelable composite member can be released from socket.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 6, wherein the latch 255 to engage with a hole 255 through the end of the bistable reelable composite member 10.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 8, wherein one of the hole 255 and an end distal end of the bistable reelable composite member 10 is one of reinforced and treated to avoid delamination spring steel, line 71 Miller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: a housing that couples with one tool head or store the tool head, while the reelable member is wound around the housing, is not disclosed or suggested by art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Miller does not disclose a handle, is not persuasive. Miller discloses that the support is provided with a tip 33 with a pointed end portion 41, so that the end is driven into the ground defining the support 10 as a handle.
Applicant’s argument that tip 41 does not define a tool head is not persuasive, since claims do not recite any structure, element or recitation that is not met by the pointed head 41. Applicant’s argument that modifying the tool of Miller would go against a lightweight, collapsible support, is not persuasive, since the tool with fiber matrix modification, for strength in adapting for a particular application, is still relatively lightweight and collapsible.
The arguments regarding the use of a particular material, as now recited in the claims, reads over the art applied is not persuasive. The use of materials comprising laminated layers of fiber embedded in a matrix, is disclosed by art in adapting the tool for strength and longevity and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the combination, it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Providing plural heads, as in a kit, is a feature know and routine and choosing a specific material for its desired properties are also considered obvious modifications with the guidelines of KSR. In this case base reference modified for a plurality of heads and the use of specific material, as applied above, meet the independent claim 1 and its related method claim 15. Further features recited in the dependent claims are also rendered obvious per reference utilized.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
June 30, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights