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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Prottengeier [US Pat # 8,635,922].
Regarding claim 1: Prottengeier shows a telescoping mechanism comprising:
a handle comprising a motor and a controller operatively connected to said motor for controlling operation of said motor (2);
a spindle (9) operatively coupled to, and configured to be rotated by, said motor;
a bearing support (18) distanced from said motor, said spindle (9) not being journaled by said motor and instead being journaled by said bearing support (18); and
telescoping segments (32, 33, 34) coupled to said spindle (9), wherein said telescoping segments are nested together in a contracted orientation and extend outwards upon rotation of said spindle (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 2: Prottengeier shows wherein said bearing support (18) is located an axial distance away from an end of a motor shaft of said motor (2).
Regarding claim 3: Prottengeier shows wherein said bearing support comprises a plate (11) formed with a bearing aperture (see fig 2) with smooth surfaces to support rotation of said spindle (9), and sides that extend from said plate (11)
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prottengeier [US Pat # 8,635,922] in view of Ritter [EP 1767439].
Regarding claim 4: Prottengeier does explicitly show wherein said motor is coupled to said spindle via a gear train.
However, Ritter teaches wherein said motor is coupled to said spindle via a gear train (20).
It could have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have added gear strain between the motor and the spindle to reduce backlash and to have the ability to torque adjustment and speed regulation of the spindle.
Regarding claim 5: Prottengeier does explicitly wherein said gear train meshes with a coupling member which is coupled to said spindle. However, Ritter shows wherein said gear train meshes with a coupling member (see fig 7) which is coupled to said spindle
It could have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have added gear strain between the motor and the spindle to reduce backlash and t have the ability to torque adjustment and speed regulation of the spindle.
Regarding claim 6: wherein said spindle (9) is journaled by said bearing support (18) by means of said coupling member (17) being rotationally supported by said bearing support (18).
Regarding claim 7: wherein said coupling member (17) is formed with an aperture that couples with said spindle.
Regarding claim 8: wherein said spindle (9) is further journaled in a bearing (see fig 2) located in said handle at an axial distance further away from said motor than said bearing support (18).
Regarding claim 9: wherein said bearing is disposed in a recess formed in a lighting element (10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument that Prottengeier failed to show that the spindle is not journaled by the motor, the spindle is instead journaled by the bearing support, and the coupling member forms part of a distinct spindle stabilization architecture rather than merely a direct motor-to-spindle connector.
Figure 8 clearly shows that the spindle (9) is not jounaled by the motor (2), the spindle is journaled by bearing support (18) and coupling element (17). The motor is not directly attached to the spindle.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
749
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example [US 8,806,972] shows telescoping assembly with spindle and more with gear train (see fig 4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights