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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 June, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-3 and 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 November, 2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mazur (2022/0089406, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Mazur teaches A drain clog remover (Fig. 1), comprising:
an elongate member (Ref. 22, Fig. 9B) for removing a clog from a pipe (examiner interprets the limitation as intended use and the elongated member is capable of removing a clog from a pipe);
a first case (Ref. 28, fig. 4-5) for accommodating the elongate member (22) in a form of a coil (Fig. 9B), and the first case (28) being annular (Fig. 4-5) and having an internal cavity (Ref. 118, Fig. 8) for accommodating the elongate member (22, Fig. 9B, [0062]), and an inner circumferential surface of the first case (Ref. 132, Fig. 8) defining an opening slot (Ref. 142, Fig. 9B) extending along a circumferential direction of the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 9B), such that a cross section of the first case is C Shaped (Fig. 8 shows a C shaped cross section), the opening slot forming an opening of the C-Shape (Fig. 8-9B);
a second case (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 1-5) comprising a body (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 4-5) which is arc-shaped (Fig. 4-5), a radian of the body being the same as that for the first case (Fig. 9A shows that there is a radian that is the same at the point (92) where they connect), the second case sleeved on the first case (Fig. 1), covering a portion of the first case and a portion of the opening slot (Fig. 9A&B) and the second case (24&26) being configured to slide relative to the first case ([0062]) along the circumferential direction of the first case (Fig. 1-2, [0062] describes the first case (28) and the second case (24&26) are rotatably moved relative to one another), wherein the second case comprises an outlet guide channel (Ref. 96, Fig. 9B) located on a side of the first case (fig. 9A&9B), the outlet guide channel forming a passage on the second case (Ref. 58, Fig. 9B, [0042]) for the elongate member to exit and enter the cavity ([0062], Fig. 9B); and
a stop member (Ref. 38, Fig. 5), which is connected to the second case (Fig. 5) and configured to, during retraction of the elongate member, apply a force on the elongate member to prevent the elongate member from dislodging from the cavity of the first case via the opening slot (142, Fig. 9B shows the stop member (38) preventing the elongate member from dislodging from the opening slot in a radial direction by a frictional force).
Regarding Claim 4, Mazur teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the stop member comprises an arcuate member (Ref. 38, Fig. 5, examiner interprets “arcuate” as curved) extending from the second case along the inner circumferential surface of the first case (Fig. 1&9A-B), one end of the arcuate member along a circumferential direction (Fig. 6 bottom end of arcuate member (38)) connected to one end of the body of the second case (Fig 9A shows the arcuate member (38) connected to a top end of the second case (24)), another end of the arcuate member along a circumferential direction (Fig. 6 right end of the arcuate member (38)) connected to the another end of the body of the second case (Fig. 7, left end of the second case (24)) along the circumferential direction such that the arcuate member defines a circle together with an inner circumferential surface of the body of the second case (Fig. 1&5).
Regarding Claim 5, Mazur teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein at least part of the arcuate member is inserted in the first case (Fig. 9A-B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, Mazur (previously presented and Dunagan (1,815,433, previously presented), the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of claim 6, but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claim 6.
Mazur, one of the closest prior art of record, discloses the limitations of claim 5 including a drain clog remover, an elongate member, a first case, and a second case, and a stop member but alone or in combination with the additional elements of the claim does not teach, suggest or make obvious the stop member comprising a rolling member rotatably connected to the arcuate member, the rolling member being configured to, when the elongate member accommodated in the first case is in a natural state, the rolling member does not contact the elongated member, and when the diameter of a circle formed by the elongated member accommodated in the first case is reduced such that the elongate member tends to dislodge from the first case, the rolling member come into contact with the elongate member to prevent the elongate member from dislodging from the internal cavity of the first case, as particularly required by the claim and in combination with the recited features of the claim.
Dunagan, one of the closest prior art of record, teaches a drain clog remover comprising a first case, a second case, a stop member with rolling members rotatably connected to the arcuate member, but alone or in combination with the additional elements of the claim does not teach, suggest or make obvious the rolling member being configured to, when the elongate member accommodated in the first case is in a natural state, the rolling member does not contact the elongated member, and when the diameter of a circle formed by the elongated member accommodated in the first case is reduced such that the elongate member tends to dislodge from the first case, the rolling member come into contact with the elongate member to prevent the elongate member from dislodging from the internal cavity of the first case, as particularly required by the claim and in combination with the recited features of the claim. Further, it would NOT have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the rolling members into the stop member to prevent the elongated member from dislodging from the first case as Dungan teaches away from this teachings with the rolling members acting to enhance dislodgement from the case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating a reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Mazur fails to teach the amended claim limitations and the stop member configured to apply a force on the elongated member to prevent it from disengaging from the cavity of the first case through the opening slot have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Mazur to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Examiner notes that the stop member (36) configured to, during retraction of the elongate member, apply a force on the elongate member to prevent the elongate member from dislodging from the cavity of the first case via the opening slot (142, Fig. 9B shows the stop member (38) preventing the elongate member from dislodging from the opening slot in a radial direction and provides a frictional force preventing the elongated member from dislodging from the opening slot). Further this is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, Mazur teaches such a first case that has a cross section of the first case is C Shaped (Fig. 8 shows a C shaped cross section), the opening slot forming an opening of the C-Shape (Fig. 8-9B) and a second case (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 1-5) comprising a body (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 4-5) which is arc-shaped (Fig. 4-5), a radian of the body being the same as that for the first case (Fig. 9A shows that there is a radian that is the same at the point (92) where they connect), the second case sleeved on the first case (Fig. 1), covering a portion of the first case and a portion of the opening slot (Fig. 9A&B) and the second case (24&26) being configured to slide relative to the first case ([0062]) along the circumferential direction of the first case (Fig. 1-2, [0062] describes the first case (28) and the second case (24&26) are rotatably moved relative to one another). Examiner notes the slide on the first case along the circumferential direction is interpreted as intended use. Therefore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant’s arguments that Mazur fails to teach the limitations of claim 4 have been fully considered and are note persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims thereby changing the scope of the claim thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating a reinterpretation of the prior art. Examiner has applied Mazur to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Examiner notes the term arcuate has been interpreted as “curved” as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Given this interpretation Mazur teaches an arcuate member (Ref. 38, Fig. 5, examiner interprets “arcuate” as curved) extending from the second case along the inner circumferential surface of the first case (Fig. 1&9A-B), one end of the arcuate member along a circumferential direction (Fig. 6 bottom end of arcuate member (38)) connected to one end of the body of the second case (Fig 9A shows the arcuate member (38) connected to a top end of the second case (24)), another end of the arcuate member along a circumferential direction (Fig. 6 right end of the arcuate member (38)) connected to the another end of the body of the second case (Fig. 7, left end of the second case (24)) along the circumferential direction such that the arcuate member defines a circle together with an inner circumferential surface of the body of the second case (Fig. 1&5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yohn (2,037,104), Yohn (2,037,103), and Fischbeck (1,721,106) teach drain cleaning members with housings and stop members and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 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, David Posigian can be reached on (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 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights