DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 July 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 22 July 2026 and 24 July 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US 8747247 B2) in view of Hanley (US 9,388,837 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Beach discloses an adjustable rod (see Fig. 3C) comprising:
an inner rod (312) and an outer rod (328) mountable between opposing mounting surfaces (see Fig. 3C), the inner rod capable of telescopically moving into and out from the outer rod to adjust a combined total length between the opposing mounting surfaces (see Abstract);
a core (A in annotated Figure 3C below) couplable at least in part to the inner rod (see Fig. 3C) and including a shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C below) with a first threading (340) and a wedge (318 in Fig. 3C) adjacent the shaft portion (see Fig. 3C); and
a one-piece sleeve (314) including a second threading (threading on 314) that cooperates with the first threading (see Fig. 3C) and a smooth portion (see end of 350 in Fig. 3C) for engaging the wedge, the sleeve disposable about the core and within the outer rod and sized to engage the outer rod (see Fig. 3C),
wherein rotating the inner rod relative to the outer rod in a first direction increases a tension of the adjustable rod against the opposing mounting surfaces and increases pressure between the sleeve and the outer rod to lock the inner rod and the outer rod in position relative to one another (see Abstract and Fig. 3C),
wherein the sleeve has a length substantially the same as a length of the shaft portion (see Fig. 3C).
Beach fails to disclose as claimed that the sleeve includes an annular wall with a gap extending along an entire length of the sleeve.
However, Hanley teaches a telescoping rod assembly comprising a sleeve (see Figs. 11 and 13) including an annular wall with a gap (72 in Fig. 11) extending along an entire length of the sleeve (see Figs. 11 and 13), in order to provide a sleeve that both enables initial placement of the sleeve and allows expansion (see Column 11 lines 52-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Beach, with Hanley, such that it comprises an annular wall with a gap, in order to provide a sleeve that both enables initial placement of the sleeve and allows expansion (see Column 11 lines 52-59 of Hanley).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches the core (A in annotated Figure 3C below) including an insert portion (C in annotated Figure 3C below) insertable within the inner rod (312 of Beach) to frictionally engage the inner rod to restrict rotation of the core relative to the inner rod (see Fig. 3C and Abstract of Beach).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches wherein the shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C below) is cylindrical (see Fig. 3C) and disposed intermediate the insert portion (C in annotated Figure 3C below) and the wedge (318 in Fig. 3C of Beach).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches wherein the sleeve (314 of Beach) is sized so that at least a portion of the sleeve (end of 350 of Beach) frictionally engages the outer rod (328 of Beach) to restrict rotation of the sleeve relative to the outer rod while permitting axial movement relative to the outer rod (see Fig 3C of Beach and see Abstract of Beach).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches the sleeve (314 of Beach) including an inner frustoconical surface (inner end frustoconical surface on 350 of Beach, see Fig. 3C of Beach) capable of engaging the wedge (318 of Beach) when the inner rod (312 of Beach) is rotated relative to the outer rod (328 of Beach) in the first direction, the wedge causing expansion of the sleeve (see Fig. 3C of Beach) to increase the pressure between the sleeve and the outer rod to lock the inner rod and the outer rod in position relative to one another (see Fig. 3C of Beach and see Abstract of Beach).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches the annular wall of the sleeve (wall of sleeve 314 of Beach) including the inner frustoconical surface (see inner end surface of 350 of Beach).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches the sleeve (314 of Beach) defining an annular wall (wall of sleeve 314 of Beach, see Fig. 3C of Beach) having a split (72 in Fig. 11 of Hanley) therein extending longitudinally an entire length of the sleeve (see Figs. 11 and 13 of Hanley) and a coring (231 of Hanley) substantially opposite the gap to provide flexibility to the sleeve (see Fig. 13 of Hanley).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US 8747247 B2) in view of Hanley (US 9,388,837 B1) and Chelchowski (US 6,974,162 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Beach discloses a connector for telescoping rods (see Fig. 3C) comprising:
a core (A in annotated Figure 3C below) including a shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C below) with a first threading (340) and a frustoconical portion (318 in Fig. 3C) having a first frustoconical surface (348); and
a one-piece sleeve (314) capable of receiving at least a portion of the core (see Fig. 3C) and having a second threading (threading on 314) and a second frustoconical surface (see ends of 350 in Fig. 3C) without threading (see Fig. 3C),
wherein the second threading is engageable with the first threading to selectively displace the sleeve relative to the core (see Fig. 3C) between a first position where the first frustoconical surface and the second frustoconical surface are separated (see Fig. 3C) and a second position where the first frustoconical surface and the second frustoconical surface engage (see Abstract).
Beach fails to disclose as claimed that the sleeve includes an annular wall with a gap extending along an entire length of the sleeve, and
wherein a first slope of the first frustoconical surface is greater than a second slope of the second frustoconical surface.
However, Hanley teaches a telescoping rod assembly comprising a sleeve (see Figs. 11 and 13) including an annular wall with a gap (72 in Fig. 11) extending along an entire length of the sleeve (see Figs. 11 and 13), in order to provide a sleeve that both enables initial placement of the sleeve and allows expansion (see Column 11 lines 52-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Beach, with Hanley, such that it comprises an annular wall with a gap, in order to provide a sleeve that both enables initial placement of the sleeve and allows expansion (see Column 11 lines 52-59 of Hanley).
The combination of Beach and Hanley still fails to teach as claimed that a first slope of the first frustoconical surface is greater than a second slope of the second frustoconical surface.
However, Chelchowski teaches a connector comprising first and second frustoconical surfaces having varying slopes (see Column 2 lines 44-51) in order to adjust the amount of radial force applied to the interacting members (see Column 6 lines 14-23 of Chelchowski) such that the radial force can be increased to increase friction between the interacting members with a minimized amount of threading.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Beach and Hanley, with Chelchowski, such that it comprises a first frustoconical surface slope being greater than a second frustoconical surface slope, in order to adjust the amount of radial force applied to the interacting members (see Column 6 lines 14-23 of Chelchowski) such that the radial force can be increased to increase friction between the interacting members with a minimized amount of threading.
PNG
media_image1.png
427
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 3C.
PNG
media_image2.png
431
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 3C.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches the sleeve (314 of Beach) being radially expanded in the second position (see Abstract of Beach) due to the engagement between the first frustoconical surface (348 of Beach) and the second frustoconical surface (see ends of 350 in Fig. 3C of Beach).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the sleeve (314 of Beach) defines a coring (231 in Fig. 13 of Hanley) in the annular wall substantially opposite the gap (72 in Fig. 11 of Hanley) to provide flexibility to the sleeve.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the sleeve (314 of Beach) includes an annular wall (see Fig. 3C of Beach), the annular wall having a tapered portion (end of 350 of Beach) forming the second frustoconical surface (end of 350 of Beach).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the tapered portion (end of 350 of Beach) is disposed between the second threading (threading on 314 of Beach) and a terminal end of the sleeve (terminal end of 350 of Beach).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the first threading (340 of Beach) of the core (A in annotated Figure 3C above) is intermediate the frustoconical portion (318 in Fig. 3C of Beach) and a non-threaded insert portion (C in annotated Figure 3c below) of the core.
PNG
media_image3.png
505
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 3C.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches further comprising a radial flange (D in annotated Figure 3C below) positioned between the non-threaded insert portion (C in annotated Figure 3C above) and the shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C above).
PNG
media_image4.png
644
743
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 3C.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the frustoconical portion (318 in Fig. 3C of Beach) increases in radial dimension from an inboard end to an outboard end of the frustoconical portion (see Fig. 3C of Beach).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C above) includes a first smooth surface (E in annotated Figure 3C below) between the first threading (340 of Beach) and the frustoconical portion (318 of Beach).
PNG
media_image5.png
451
313
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 3C.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the core (A in annotated Figure 3C above) includes a non-threaded insert portion (C in annotated Figure 3C above), and the shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C above) includes a second smooth surface (F in annotated Figure 3C below) between the first threading (340 of Beach) and the non- threaded insert portion (see Fig. 3C of Beach).
PNG
media_image6.png
406
210
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 3C.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US 8747247 B2), Hanley (US 9,388,837 B1), and Chelchowski (US 6,974,162 B2), as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Didehvar (US 10,995,786 B2).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski teaches wherein the non-threaded insert portion has a first maximum diameter (G in annotated Figure 3C below), the shaft portion has a second maximum diameter (H in annotated Figure 3C below) at the first threading (340 of Beach), but fails to teach as claimed that the first maximum diameter is greater than the second maximum diameter.
However, Didehvar teaches the non-threaded insert portion (62 in Fig. 4) having a first maximum diameter (see Fig. 4), and the shaft portion (42 in Fig. 4) having a second maximum diameter (see Fig. 4), wherein the first maximum diameter is greater than the second maximum diameter (see Fig. 4), in order to provide a connector for telescoping rods that allows for the telescopic connection of two rods similar in diameter, therefore providing an esthetically pleasing and discrete rod connection.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Beach, Hanley, and Chelchowski, with Didehvar, such that it comprises the maximum diameter of the non-threaded insertion portion being greater than that of the maximum diameter of the shaft portion, in order to provide a connector for telescoping rods that allows for the telescopic connection of two rods similar in diameter, therefore providing an esthetically pleasing and discrete rod connection.
PNG
media_image7.png
350
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 3C.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Beach, Hanley, Chelchowski, and Didehvar teaches wherein the frustoconical portion (318 in Fig. 3C of Beach) has a third maximum diameter (located at 352 in Fig. 3C of beach) that is greater than the first maximum diameter (G in annotated Figure 3C above) of the non-threaded insert portion (C in annotated Figure 3C above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026, page 2, recites: “…Beach and Hanley fail to disclose or suggest this claim language…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection now relies upon Chelchowski to teach any claim limitations with regard to the sleeve having a first slope of the first frustoconical surface being greater than a second slope of the second frustoconical surface. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are moot with regard to any such claim language. Further, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Beach and Hanley do teach the claim language of “…a core including a shaft portion with a first threading and a frustoconical portion having a first frustoconical surface…” and “…a one-piece sleeve capable of receiving at least a portion of the core and having a second threading and a second frustoconical surface without threading…”. The combination of Beach and Hanley teaches a core (A in annotated Figure 3C above) including a shaft portion (B in annotated Figure 3C above) with a first threading (340 of Beach) and a frustoconical portion (318 in Fig. 3C of Beach) having a first frustoconical surface (348 of Beach). It is unclear to Examiner as to how the combination does not teach the claimed language. Further, the combination of Beach and Hanley teaches a one-piece sleeve (314 of Beach) capable of receiving at least a portion of the core (see Fig. 3C of Beach) and having a second threading (threading on 314 of Beach) and a second frustoconical surface (see ends of 350 in Fig. 3C of Beach) without threading (see Fig. 3C of Beach). Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026, page 4, recite: “…Beach and Hanley fail to disclose or suggest this claim language…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear as to why Applicant believes the prior art fails to teach the claim language of claim 14. As shown above in the rejection of claim 14, the prior art clearly teaches the claimed features of claim 14. Further, the new limitation of “wherein the sleeve has a length substantially the same as a length of the shaft portion” is taught by the prior art. Applicant’s specification does not redefine the term “substantially”. Accordingly, Examiner interprets the prior arts sleeve to have a length substantially the same as a length of the shaft portion. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights