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 .
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Claims 2-3 and 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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);
a second case (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 1-5) 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 ([0061]), 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, [0061] describes the stop member (38) preventing the elongate member from dislodging from the opening slot in a radial direction).
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 (24&26) along the inner circumferential surface of the first case (Fig. 1&9a-b show the arcuate member extending from the second case in a vertical direction when assembled and is along the inner circumferential surface of the first case, examiner notes the term along is interpreted as following a similar path), one end of the arcuate member connected to one end of the second case (Fig 6 shows the top end of the arcuate member (38) connected to one end of the second case (24)), another end of the arcuate member connected to the another end of the second case (Fig. 7&9A shows connected to the other end of the second case (26) at the portion (106)) such that the arcuate member defines a circle together with an inner circumferential surface of the second case (fig. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 5, Mazur teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches wherein at least part of the arcuate member is inserted in the first case (28, Fig. 9A).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Dunagan (1,815,433, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 6, Mazur teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the arcuate member further comprises a rolling member rotatably connected to the arcuate member, the rolling member being configured to, when the elongate member tends to dislodge from the first case, contact the elongate member to prevent dislodgement of the elongate member. Dunagan teaches a reeling member with cases and elongated members and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Dunagan further teaches a first case (Ref. 12, Fig. 2), a second case (Ref. 2, Fig. 1&2) and an arcuate member (Ref. 3&5, Fig. 1&2) wherein the arcuate member further comprises a rolling member (Ref. 5, Fig. 1&2) rotatably connected to the arcuate member (Ref. 3, Fig. 1), the rolling member being configured to, when the elongate member tends to dislodge from the first case, contact an elongate member (Ref. 11, Fig. 2) to prevent dislodgement of the elongate member (Fig. 2&3 shows the roller (5) prevents dislodgement of the elongate member). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stop ring, as taught by Dunagan, with rolling members to prevent dislodgement of the elongated member, as taught by Dunagan, to provide a further benefit of allowing the elongated member to be quickly and easily reeled in and out of the casing ([Lines 27-33 &40-44]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract have been fully considered and examiner has withdrawn the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4 have been fully considered and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 changing the scope of the claim thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Mazur fails to disclose an inner circumferential surface of the first casing defining an opening slot extending along a circumferential direction of the circumferential surface, a stop member connected to the second case, and the second case comprises an outlet guide channel have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Mazur to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Mazur teaches 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);
a second case (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 1-5) 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) configured to, during retraction of the elongate member ([0061]), 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, [0061] describes the stop member (38) preventing the elongate member from dislodging from the opening slot in a radial direction). If applicant intended for the stop member to prevent movement of or lock the elongate member such a limitation is not required.
Applicant has amended claim 4 changing the scope of the claim thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Mazur fails to teach a separate component, with a connection at its end or define a circle have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Mazur to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Mazur teaches wherein the stop member comprises an arcuate member (Ref. 38, Fig. 5, examiner interprets arcuate as curved) extending from the second case (24&26) along the inner circumferential surface of the first case (Fig. 1&9a-b show the arcuate member extending from the second case in a vertical direction when assembled and is along the inner circumferential surface of the first case, examiner notes the term along is interpreted as following a similar path), one end of the arcuate member connected to one end of the second case (Fig 6 shows the top end of the arcuate member (38) connected to one end of the second case (24)), another end of the arcuate member connected to the another end of the second case (Fig. 7&9A shows connected to the other end of the second case (26) at the portion (106)) such that the arcuate member defines a circle together with an inner circumferential surface of the second case (fig. 1-5). If applicant intended for the stop member to be a completely separate member from the second case such a limitation is not required by the claims.
Applicant has amended claim 6 changing the scope of the claim thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach any function related to preventing a component from dislodging from a case opening has been fully considered and is not persuasive, 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). Dunagan teaches a first case (Ref. 12, Fig. 2), a second case (Ref. 2, Fig. 1&2) and an arcuate member (Ref. 3&5, Fig. 1&2) wherein the arcuate member further comprises a rolling member (Ref. 5, Fig. 1&2) rotatably connected to the arcuate member (Ref. 3, Fig. 1), the rolling member being configured to, when the elongate member tends to dislodge from the first case, contact an elongate member (Ref. 11, Fig. 2) to prevent dislodgement of the elongate member (Fig. 2&3 shows the roller (5) prevents dislodgement of the elongate member from the opening as seen in Fig. 1). Therefore, given the suggestion of Dunagan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stop ring, as taught by Dunagan, with rolling members to prevent dislodgement of the elongated member, as taught by Dunagan, to provide a further benefit of allowing the elongated member to be quickly and easily reeled in and out of the casing ([Lines 27-33 &40-44]).
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 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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights