DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-20 were withdrawn.
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, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer (US 20200338711 A1) in view of Zarpellon (US 20080315058 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Banholzer teaches a power tool comprising:
a housing (102 including an electric motor (106, see Figure 3);
a work element (104);
a shaft (114, see Figure 2) extending between the housing and the work element (see Figure 2), wherein the shaft includes an outer shaft (116) and an inner shaft (118); and
a clamp (120) coupled to the shaft and extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end (left and right end in Figure 2), wherein the clamp is actuatable between a locked position and an unlocked position (paragraph 0024), wherein the inner shaft is configured to slide longitudinally within the outer shaft when the clamp is in the unlocked position, and wherein the outer shaft and the inner shaft are secured in a desired position when the clamp is in the locked position (see Figure 3).
Banholzer fails to teach the clamp comprising: an inner collar coupled to the outer shaft, an outer collar rotatable about the inner collar between the locked position and the unlocked position, and a collet within the outer collar adjacent the first end and configured to engage the inner collar in the locked position, wherein the collet comprises a collet base, a flange extending from the collet base adjacent the first end, and at least one protrusion extending from an exterior surface of the collet base adjacent the first end.
Zarpellon teaches a pole (2 and 3) including a clamp (5) comprising: an inner collar (12) coupled to the outer shaft (see Figure 2), an outer collar (15) rotatable about the inner collar between the locked position and the unlocked position (see Figures 1-2), and a collet (20) within the outer collar adjacent the first end and configured to engage the inner collar in the locked position (see Figures 1-2), wherein the collet comprises a collet base, a flange (flange at the edge of 20) extending from the collet base adjacent the first end (see Figures 1-2), and at least one protrusion (21) extending from an exterior surface of the collet base adjacent the first end (see Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Banholzer to change the clamp into the collet clamp, as taught Zarpellon, in order to make an efficient and durable clamp for a pole (abstract of Zarpellon).
Regarding claim 3, modified Banholzer further teaches rotation of the outer collar in a first direction moves the outer collar and the collet towards the second end to the locked position (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon); rotation of the outer collar in a second direction moves the outer collar and the collet towards the first end to the unlocked position (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon); and the second direction is opposite the first direction (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Regarding claim 4, modified Banholzer further teaches the collet is configured to engage the inner shaft in the locked position and prevent movement of the inner shaft (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Regarding claim 5, modified Banholzer further teaches the collet is rotationally isolated from the outer collar (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Regarding claim 6, modified Banholzer further teaches the outer collar is configured to rotate about the inner collar a first unknown value in the first direction and a second unknown value in the second direction (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Modified Banholzer fails to teach less than or equal to 90° in the first/second direction for locking/unlocking.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific degrees of rotation range being less than 90° in the first/second direction, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Banholzer to have the specific degrees of rotation range being less than 90° in the first/second direction set forth in the claim for the desired effort wanted by the end used for locking/unlocking of the clamp.
Regarding claim 7, modified Banholzer further teaches an end of the collet adjacent the second end defines a first inclined surface having a width increasing from the second end towards the first end (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon); an end of the inner collar adjacent the first end defines a second inclined surface having a width increasing from the first end towards the second end (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon); and the first inclined surface engages the second inclined surface in the locked position (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Regarding claim 10, modified Banholzer further teaches the outer collar comprises a plurality of protrusions extending from an outer surface adjacent the first end, the plurality of protrusions spaced about a circumference of the outer collar (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer (US 20200338711 A1) in view of Zarpellon (US 20080315058 A1) and in further view of McCord (US 3284114)
Regarding claim 2, modified Banholzer further teaches an interior surface of the outer collar comprises a first friction engagement adjacent surface the first end (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon); an exterior surface of the inner collar comprises a friction engagement adjacent the first end (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon); and the first friction engagement adjacent surface is configured to engage the second friction engagement adjacent surface (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Modified Banholzer fails to teach different sets of threads
McCord teaches an interior surface of the outer collar comprises a first plurality of threads adjacent the first end (see Figure 2 of McCord); an exterior surface of the inner collar comprises a second plurality of threads adjacent the first end (see Figure 2); and the first plurality of threads are configured to engage the second plurality of threads (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Banholzer to change the clamp into the collet clamp, as taught McCord, in order to a secured connection (col. Lines 18-27 of McCord).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer (US 20200338711 A1) in view of Zarpellon (US 20080315058 A1) and in further view of King (US 7484300 B2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Banholzer further teaches a mount configured to secure the inner collar to the outer shaft (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon) and mounted via friction fit (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Modified Banholzer fails to teach one or more fasteners configured to secure the mount to the inner collar and the outer shaft.
King teaches one or more fasteners (31) configured to secure the mount to the inner collar and the outer shaft (see Figure 5A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Banholzer to change friction fit into rivets, as taught King, in order to make a more secure connection (col. 2 lines 58-64, see Figures 6A-B of King).
Regarding claim 9, modified Banholzer further teaches the mount comprises a cylindrical plate coupled to an interior surface of the outer shaft (as modified, see Figures 1-2 of Zarpellon).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights