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 8/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments traverse the previous rejections, but do not render the claims allowable over the additional prior art relied upon below. The “recessed grooves” are not considered meaningfully different than the ribs of Gerosa, however, further art is relied upon to explicitly teach the limitations. The “twist lock locking member”, “button clip”, “snap button strap fastener” and “magnetic fastener” are also notoriously well-known and common in the telescoping body and hand tool arts. Hook-and-loop strap fasteners are also not considered inventive over the prior art of record relied upon below.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 8,776,648 in view of Polzin, U.S. Patent 5,983,455.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
a body (49) comprised of a first end (see below), a second end (50), and a handle (16); and
a forearm support (12) positioned on the second end.
Lee does not teach:
the body further comprises a twist lock locking member that secures the body at a length; and wherein the handle comprises a recessed groove grip.
Polzin teaches:
a body (30, 32) further comprises a twist lock locking member (34, 36) that secures the body at a length (Col 4, Lns 39-64); and wherein a handle comprises a recessed groove grip (see 36, 40, 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the twist lock locking member of Polzin on the Lee device because the twist lock mechanism would allow simple and quick extension of the device as desired. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the recessed grooves of Polzin on the grip of Lee because that would improve the control of the device by increasing the friction between the user’s hand and the grip.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Lee, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the body is comprised of a telescopic body (see fig. 13, see Col 7, lns 45-60)
Regarding Claim 5, Lee, in the instant combination, discloses:
wherein the handle is comprised of a fastener (see fig. 14, elements 80, 82, 86)
Regarding Claim 6, Lee, in the instant combination, discloses:
wherein the first end is comprised of an opening (see element 49 which receives element 52 and therefore must have an opening).
Claims 9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘648 in view of Steinick, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0258674, Cassutti, U.S. Patent 5,868,048 and Webb, U.S. Patent 11,617,939.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches:
a body (49) comprised of a first end (see above, see rejections of Claims 1 and 6) comprised of an opening , a
second end (50), and a handle (16); and
a forearm support (12) positioned on the second end
Lee does not teach:
the body further comprises a button clip locking member that secures the body at a length;
wherein the opening comprises a magnetic fastener; and
wherein the forearm support comprises a snap button strap fastener.
Steinick teaches:
a body further comprises a button clip locking member (see fig. 4c, 40b) that secures the body at a length;
Cassutti teaches:
An opening comprising a magnetic fastener (see 18, 18, 20, 22)
Webb teaches:
A forearm support comprises a snap button strap fastener (see 106, see Col 7, Lns 21-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lee with the teachings of Steinick because button clip locking members are notoriously old and well known methods for effectively securing telescoping poles and the button clip locking member would be an off-the-shelf component which would be an economical choice for the device. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lee with the magnetic fastener of Cassutti because that would permit easy assembly and disassembly of the tool head. And, lastly, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lee with the snap button strap fastener because that would permit adjustment of the strap for different sized arms.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the forearm support is curved (see element 12 which is curved)
Regarding Claim 16, see obvious grip area of Lee on handle 16 in the instant combination.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Steinick- Cassutti -Webb as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fornelli, U.S. Patent 6,082,795.
All the aspects of the instant invention are taught by the prior art as set forth in the rejections above, but for:
The forearm support comprised of padding
Fornelli clearly teaches:
The forearm support comprises padding (see 16, 62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lee-Steinick- Cassutti -Webb with the features of Fornelli because that would improve the ergonomics by permitting changing of the size of the forearm support for different users and improving the comfort with the padding.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Steinick- Cassutti -Webb in view of Gerosa, U.S. Patent 9,180,589.
Examiner notes that every material can be reasonably interpreted to have a “texture” as claimed although the instant combination is silent with regard to any specific texture it is still believed that the prior art anticipates the limitation as currently claimed.
Should applicant disagree then Gerosa is introduced as teaching a specific desirable texture (see Col 3, Lns 27-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lee-Steinick- Cassutti -Webb with textures as taught by Gerosa because this would improve the ergonomics of the device and improve the friction between a user’s hand and the grip.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘648 in view of Polzin ‘455, Webb ‘939 and Cassutti, U.S. Patent 5,868,048.
In addition to the structures taught in the rejections above, Lee further teaches a cleaning device attached to the first end (see fig. 13, note threaded end at 52) and the handle and cleaning device being grabbed and used as claimed (see fig. 2). Polzin teaches the recess groove grip (see 36, 40, 41) Webb teaches a hook-and-loop fastener for a forearm support strap (see 106, Col 6, Ln 61 – Col 7, Ln 10).
Lee-Polzin-Webb does not teach magnetically attaching the cleaning device to the first end.
Cassutti clearly teaches the use of a magnet to attach a tool to a shaft (see 16, 18, 20, 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Cassutti in the Lee-Polzin-Webb combination because that would allow for easy assembly and disassembly of the device. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677