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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 02/11/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 remain pending, with claims 1, 5, and 14-16 currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 1 and 16, support for the cutting edge oriented perpendicular to the shaft was not found in the original disclosure. The original specification does not mention perpendicular, 90 degrees, right angles, or any other terminology that would support a perpendicular orientation. The drawings also fail to show or label such an orientation as they show perspective views. Claims 2-3 and 5-13 inherit this issue since they depend from the rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: a first securing device and a second securing device in claim 1. Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the limitation, “first securing device,” the following application of the 3-prong analysis was utilized to determine a 112(f) interpretation:
Prong (A): the claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder: “device”
Prong (B): the generic placeholder is modified by functional language: “to releasably secure said plunger head in said first position”
Prong (C): the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function: no additional structure pertaining to the first securing device is recited.
Accordingly, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) and cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as a locking member and functional equivalents thereof.
Regarding the limitation, “second securing device,” the following application of the 3-prong analysis was utilized to determine a 112(f) interpretation:
Prong (A): the claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder: “device”
Prong (B): the generic placeholder is modified by functional language: “to releasably secure said plunger head in said second position”
Prong (C): the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function: no additional structure pertaining to the second securing device is recited.
Accordingly, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) and cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as a locking member and functional equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 5-10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry in view of US Patent 6,898,807 (hereinafter Tash).
Regarding claim 1, Garry discloses a drain-unclogging assembly (2) comprising: an elongated structure comprising a handle (12), an engagement head (8, 10), and a shaft (4) connecting said handle and said engagement head; said engagement head comprising a plurality of projections (8, 10) configured to break apart objects lodged in a drain mouth and obstructing flow of water (the wire bristles/brushes 8, 10 are shaped and sized to break apart objects in a drain); a plunger head (6) movably mounted on said shaft (fig. 1, 4), wherein said plunger head is selectively movable between a first position (fig. 2) in which said plunger head is disposed at said engagement head surrounding said projections and a second position (fig. 4) in which said plunger head is disposed adjacent said handle portion, such that said projections are exposed (fig. 4); and a releasable securing assembly (24, 26, 16) comprising a first securing device (24) to releasably secure said plunger head in said first position (“In particular embodiments of the retractor grip 20, an inner surface 24 of the retractor grip 20 is equipped with a friction-increasing coating or layer (such as rubber, silicon, a textured metal or plastic surface or the like), and the retractor grip 20 is made firm but flexible. In such embodiments, a user may squeeze the retractor grip 20 to cause the friction-increasing surface 24 to frictionally engage the plunger handle 4 and engage resistance against the plunger 6 moving back to its extended position. Examples of slip-resistant devices and reduced-slip handles easily adaptable to embodiments of the present invention may be found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,212,727 to Bendor (issued Apr. 10, 2001) entitled Twist-Type Mop, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference”; col. 5, ln. 52-64) and a second securing device (16) to releasably secure said plunger head in said second position (second securing device 16 provides a stop for the first securing device 24 to retain the assembly in the second position as seen in fig. 4).
Garry fails to show wherein each of said projections comprises at least one cutting edge oriented perpendicular to the shaft. Attention is turned to Tash, in the same field of endeavor of plungers combined with cleaning tools, which shows including a plurality of projections (175) with at least one cutting edge oriented perpendicular to the shaft (note annotated fig. below – shaft axis extends in the y-axis direction; cutting edges extend in the x-axis direction) comprising fins projecting substantially radially (note annotated fig. below), wherein said fins are curved (note annotated fig. below), and the fins have a sloped edge (note annotated fig. below). Garry teaches including a hook coupled to the end of the shaft (120) provides the capability of snaring and removing obstructions within a drain (col. 8, ln. 17-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Garry such that it includes projections having at least one cutting edge, wherein said projections comprise fins projecting substantially radially, wherein said fins are curved, and wherein said fins have a sloped edge to provide the capability of snaring and removing obstructions within a drain as evidenced by the teachings of Tash mentioned above which coincides with the goals and teachings of Garry of having a clean and unobstructed drain.
Regarding claim 2, Garry discloses wherein said plunger head comprises a guide sleeve (20) movably mounted on shaft, wherein said guide sleeve has a length sufficient to permit grasping by a hand of a user (col. 5, ln. 44-51).
Regarding claim 3, Garry discloses wherein said guide sleeve comprises a hard plastic or hard rubber (col. 5, ln. 52-56).
Regarding claims 5-7, under the modification in view of Tash, Tash shows wherein said projections comprise fins projecting substantially radially, wherein said fins are curved, and wherein said fins have a sloped edge (note annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
914
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Garry discloses wherein said projections comprise a resiliently deformable rubber or soft plastic (col. 4, ln. 45-60).
Regarding claim 9, Garry discloses wherein said plunger head comprises an orifice having a diameter sufficient to engage with a drain opening and to permit said plunger head to be moved past said projections (fig. 2 shows the plunger head (6) orifice; the plunger head moves past said projections when going from the orientation of fig. 4 to the orientation of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Garry discloses wherein said plunger head comprises a first conical portion and a second conical portion connected together, and said first conical portion tapers to said guide sleeve and said second conical portion tapers to said orifice (note annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Garry discloses a method of using the drain-unclogging assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 set forth above), comprising the steps of: manually engaging and releasing said first securing device and moving said plunger head from said first position in which said plunger head is disposed at said engagement head surrounding said projections and to said second position in which said plunger head is disposed adjacent said handle portion, such that said projections are exposed (col. 5, ln. 35-51); manually engaging and releasing said second securing device and moving said plunger head from said second position to said first position (col. 5, ln. 52-65); engaging said drain mouth with said plunger head and plunging said drain (col. 5, ln. 4-5)
Garry fails to show a step of breaking apart objects lodged in a drain mouth and obstructing flow of water using said projections; and a step of repeating said preceding steps as needed until water and objects flow satisfactorily through said drain mouth. Attention is turned to Tash, in the same field of endeavor of plungers combined with cleaning tools, that teaches a step of breaking apart objects lodged in a drain mouth and obstructing flow of water using projections (175) (col. 9, ln. 1-5), and repeating preceding steps as needed until water and objects flow satisfactorily through said drain mouth (col. 9, ln. 15-18). Tash teaches these method steps promote sufficient force to quickly clear any obstruction (col. 9, ln. 18-21). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Garry to include steps of breaking apart objects lodged in a drain mouth and obstructing flow of water using said projections; and a step of repeating said preceding steps as needed until water and objects flow satisfactorily through said drain mouth to quickly clear any obstruction as evidenced by the teachings of Tash mentioned above.
Regarding claim 15, Garry teaches the drain mouth is a toilet bowl (col. 2, ln. 9-13) and the object is fecal material or toilet paper (col. 1, ln. 33-35).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry and Tash as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,305,882 (hereinafter Kaplan).
Regarding claims 11-13, Garry fails to show wherein each of said first and second securing devices comprises a locking member mounted on and projecting from said shaft and said guide sleeve comprises an opening therein configured to releasably engage with said locking member, wherein said locking member comprises a spring disposed in said shaft and a tab attached to said spring and movable into and out of said shaft, and wherein said opening in said guide sleeve comprises a slot. Attention is turned to Kaplan, in the same field of endeavor of toilet plungers and brushes, which teaches using a plurality of securing devices each having a spring disposed on a shaft of the plunger and coupled to a tab (i.e. detent), and a guide sleeve having an opening/slot for receiving the detents to adjust the position of the plunger head along the shaft (fig. 1). Kaplan teaches this configuration is functionally equivalent to a twist and lock mechanism (col. 3, ln. 29-40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to substitute a spring, tab, and slot configuration such as that described above for the twist lock locking members of Garry as the substitution of one functionally equivalent structure falls within routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings of Kaplan mentioned above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry in view of Tash and Kaplan.
Regarding claim 16, Garry discloses a drain-unclogging assembly (2) comprising: an elongated structure comprising a handle (12), an engagement head (8, 10), and a shaft (4) connecting said handle and said engagement head; said engagement head comprising a plurality of projections (8, 10) configured to break apart objects lodged in a drain mouth and obstructing flow of water (the wire bristles/brushes 8, 10 are shaped and sized to break apart objects in a drain); wherein said projections comprise a resiliently deformable rubber or soft plastic (col. 4, ln. 45-60); a plunger head (6) movably mounted on said shaft (fig. 1, 4), wherein said plunger head is selectively movable between a first position (fig. 2) in which said plunger head is disposed at said engagement head surrounding said projections and a second position (fig. 4) in which said plunger head is disposed adjacent said handle portion, such that said projections are exposed (fig. 4); wherein said plunger head comprises a guide sleeve (20) movably mounted on shaft, wherein said guide sleeve has a length sufficient to permit grasping by a hand of a user (col. 5, ln. 44-51); wherein said guide sleeve comprises a hard plastic or hard rubber (col. 5, ln. 52-56); herein said plunger head comprises an orifice having a diameter sufficient to engage with a drain opening and to permit said plunger head to be moved past said projections (fig. 2 shows the plunger head (6) orifice; the plunger head moves past said projections when going from the orientation of fig. 4 to the orientation of fig. 1); wherein said plunger head comprises a first conical portion and a second conical portion connected together, and said first conical portion tapers to said guide sleeve and said second conical portion tapers to said orifice (note annotated fig. above regarding claim 1) and a releasable securing assembly (24, 26, 16) comprising a first securing device (24) to releasably secure said plunger head in said first position (“In particular embodiments of the retractor grip 20, an inner surface 24 of the retractor grip 20 is equipped with a friction-increasing coating or layer (such as rubber, silicon, a textured metal or plastic surface or the like), and the retractor grip 20 is made firm but flexible. In such embodiments, a user may squeeze the retractor grip 20 to cause the friction-increasing surface 24 to frictionally engage the plunger handle 4 and engage resistance against the plunger 6 moving back to its extended position. Examples of slip-resistant devices and reduced-slip handles easily adaptable to embodiments of the present invention may be found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,212,727 to Bendor (issued Apr. 10, 2001) entitled Twist-Type Mop, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference”; col. 5, ln. 52-64) and a second securing device (16) to releasably secure said plunger head in said second position (second securing device 16 provides a stop for the first securing device 20 to retain the assembly in the second position as seen in fig. 4).
Garry fails to show wherein each of said projections comprises at least one cutting edge, with at least one cutting edge oriented perpendicular to the shaft; wherein said projections comprise fins projecting substantially radially, wherein said fins are curved, and wherein said fins have a sloped edge. Attention is turned to Tash, in the same field of endeavor of plungers combined with cleaning tools, which shows including a plurality of projections (175) with at least one cutting edge (note annotated fig. above regarding claims 4-7) oriented perpendicular to the shaft (note annotated fig. below – shaft axis extends in the y-axis direction; cutting edges extend in the x-axis direction) comprising fins projecting substantially radially (note annotated fig. above regarding claims 4-7, wherein said fins are curved (note annotated fig. above regarding claims 4-7), and the fins have a sloped edge (note annotated fig. above regarding claims 4-7). Garry teaches including a hook coupled to the end of the shaft (120) provides the capability of snaring and removing obstructions within a drain (col. 8, ln. 17-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Garry such that it includes projections having at least one cutting edge, wherein said projections comprise fins projecting substantially radially, wherein said fins are curved, and wherein said fins have a sloped edge to provides the capability of snaring and removing obstructions within a drain as evidenced by the teachings of Tash mentioned above which coincides with the goals and teachings of Garry of having a clean and unobstructed drain.
Garry fails to show wherein each of said first and second securing devices comprises a locking member mounted on and projecting from said shaft and said guide sleeve comprises an opening therein configured to releasably engage with said locking member, wherein said locking member comprises a spring disposed in said shaft and a tab attached to said spring and movable into and out of said shaft, and wherein said opening in said guide sleeve comprises a slot. Attention is turned to Kaplan, in the same field of endeavor of toilet plungers and brushes, which teaches using a plurality of securing devices each having a spring disposed on a shaft of the plunger and coupled to a tab (i.e. detent), and a guide sleeve having an opening/slot for receiving the detents to adjust the position of the plunger head along the shaft (fig. 1). Kaplan teaches this configuration is functionally equivalent to a twist and lock mechanism (col. 3, ln. 29-40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to substitute a spring, tab, and slot configuration such as that described above for the twist lock locking members of Garry as the substitution of one functionally equivalent structure falls within routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings of Kaplan mentioned above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the edges of the hook of Tash are not cutting blades. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fins of Tash are planar and thin and of sufficient rigidity that a cutting aspect is certainly within the purview of the structure. Furthermore, the fins/blades extend in a plane perpendicular to the plane defined by the shaft axis and are therefore oriented perpendicular to the shaft. The reliance on Tash for the amended language is deemed proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 7,194,773 is directed to the state of the art of tools having blades for clearing toilet blockages.
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 JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754