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 § 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, 8-11, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad ‘923 (US 2020?0040923 A1) in view of Lofley et al. ‘051 (Lofley Sr. et al. US 8,939,051 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad shows a telescoping pole system (10) comprising a first pole (12); a second pole (26), wherein the first pole is configured to fit within the second pole; a third pole (27), wherein the second pole (26) is configured to fit within the third pole (27); an adapter (e.g., fig. 3, the connector between tool 21 and end 17, fixed by apertures 24, see [0044]) selectively coupled to the first end of the telescoping pole system; at least one glide (70, figs. 19 and 22) disposed between the first pole and the second pole; or between the second pole and the third pole; and a clamp (20) operably coupled at the first end. Conrad does not show the at least one glide disposed between the first pole and the second pole, or disposed between the second pole and the third pole to aid in sliding and maintain a pole gap between the poles. Instead, Conrad teaches that the glide (sliding with one of the poles) is a stop element (70, figs. 19 and 22) disposed between the two adjacent poles to prevent the poles from coming apart during use, without mentioning whether the stop element is used for aiding in sliding of the poles. Lofley et al. teaches a telescopic pole system (e.g., fig. 5) including a glide (bushes 120, 270) disposed between the first pole and the second pole (40, 20) and between the second pole and the third pole (20, 160). Lofley et al. specifically points out that the glide (e.g., 120) slidably engages with the interior bore of the second pole (20) for defining a slide guide to facilitate the slidable displacement of the first pole and the second pole (or the second pole and the third pole) for preventing binding between the poles. Further, Lofley et al. teaches that the glide (120, 270) also acts as a stop to limit one pole being withdrawn too far from the other (col. 7, line 53-col. 8, line 32; col. 9, line 59-col. 10, line 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stop of Conrad, which is not engaged with an inner wall of the outer pole, with the stop taught by Lofley, which is engaged with the inner wall of the outer pole, for facilitating sliding movement between the adjacent poles and for providing a stop to limit the position of one pole relative to the other.
As to claim 2, Conrad shows that the first, second, and third poles have a multi-lobe geometry (figs. 19-22).
As to claim 3, Conrad shows a handle comprising a grip (32) coupled to a second end of the telescoping pole system.
As to claim 8, the combination of Conrad and Lofley et al. shows the at least one glide includes a first glide located between the first pole and the second pole, and a second glide located between the second pole and the third pole (fig. 22).
As to claim 9, Conrad shows the first pole (12) comprises a first proximal end (the end with stop 70); the second pole (26) comprises a second proximal end (the end with stop 76, fig. 22); the first glide is coupled to an exterior surface of the first pole (12) at the first proximal end and the second glide is coupled to an exterior surface at the second proximal end of the second pole (26, fig. 22, see [0070]-[0073]); wherein the first pole is nested within the second pole, the first proximal end is adjacent the second proximal end (i.e., in the retracted position of the poles).
As to claim 10, Lofley et al. shows that the first glide (e.g., 120) including at least one protrusion that couples with at least one hole in the first pole and the second glide (270) including at least one protrusion that couples with at least one hole in the second pole (“set pin” equivalent to a protrusion, and a hole in the pole to receive the set pin; see col. 7, lines 57-58).
As to claim 11, Lofley et al. shows that the first glide and the second glide (120, 270) are chemically coupled to the exterior surface of the respective poles (“adhesive”, col. 7, line 58).
As to claim 14, Conrad shows the clamp (20) having a flange (figs. 5 and 7, hidden opposite end of 18) extending toward an exterior surface of the first pole or the second pole to contact the at least one glide.
As to claim 15, Conrad shows the clamp (fig. 7) comprises a top portion (“18”, fig. 7) contacting the glide and being configured to stop the first pole from extending further when a maximum length is reached (fig. 7).
As to claim 18, the clamp of Conrad shows a locking protrusion (38) coupled to a locking lever (46) of the clamp, the locking protrusion being configured to engage the first pole or the second pole when the locking lever is in a locking position.
As to claim 19, see claim 18 above.
As to claim 20, the clamp of Conrad has a multi-lobe cross-section (see interior of fig. 8).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad ‘923 and Lofley, Sr. et al. ‘051 as applied to claims 1-3, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Buckley et al. ‘257 (US 2021/0396257 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the combination of Conrad and Lofley et al. discussed above meets the invention as claimed except for the adapter having a multi-lobe geometry at a distal end and a circular geometry at a proximal end. Buckley et al. teaches an adapter (112 or 412) having a multi-lobe geometry at a distal end (the end engaged to pole 102; “multi-lobe” is inherent in order to fit the geometry of the multi-lobe pole 102) and a circular geometry at a proximal end (the end engaged with the tool, figs. 1B and 4), configured to selectively or releasably attach various implements to the pole system (see [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pole system of the Conrad with the adapter taught Buckley et al., so that the telescoping pole system can be used to selectively or releasably attach to a variety of implements to suit the user needs. Note that “a tool connector” is part of a tool, which is an inherent structure that would be mounted to the adapter.
As to claim 6, the adapter of Buckley et al. is selectively coupled to a cleaning implement (see [0047]).
As to claim 7, the adapter of Buckley et al. shows a collar abutting the first end (i.e., the mid-section of the adapter; the end of the pole 102 inserted into the recessed/multi-lobe end of the adapter and abutting the mid-section).
Claims 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad ‘923 and Lofley, Sr. et al. ‘051 in view of Huang ‘707 (US 2022/0290707 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Conrad and Lofley et al. does not show the clamp having an overhead cam lock, and a collar. Instead, Conrad uses a press-type clamp (20, 21). Huang teaches a clamp (commonly known as quick-release or cam lock) including a body (131), an overhead cam lock (132) and a collar (lowest portion sleeved on pole 12, see figs. 2A and 2B). Both the press-type clamp and the quick-release clamp are comparable devices that perform similar functions, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of locking/unlocking the telescoping pole system.
As to claim 16, the clamp body of Huang has a constant diameter and defines a through-aperture ([0035] and [0045]).
As to claim 17, the clamp body of Conrad (fig. 5) has a first diameter opening at a first end (18, right side) and a second diameter opening at the second end (18, left side), wherein the first diameter opening is smaller than the second diameter opening, and the body defines a through-aperture form the first diameter opening to the second diameter opening.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad ‘923 and Lofley, Sr. et al. ‘051 as applied to claims 1-3, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Boden ‘557 (5,579,557).
The combination of Conrad and Lofley et al. discloses the invention as claimed but for the ribs on an interior surface of the second pole and the third pole for contacting the first and second glides. Boden teaches forming ribs (12) on the interior of a pole for guiding a catch sling through the pole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior of the first and second poles with the ribs taught by Boden, to guide the glides sliding through the adjacent pole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s primary argument is based on that the stops of Conrad is not in contact with the inner surface of an outer pole and therefore it cannot provide aid in sliding movement between the adjacent poles. Examiner agrees. However, the contacting relationship between the glide and the inner wall of the outer pole is not claimed in the original claim 1. “glide” is met by the functionality of sliding and stopping of the stops of Conrad, with or without contacting the inner wall of the outer pole.
In view of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
No new reference cited in this office action, except the applied reference US 8,939,051 B1 (Lofley, Sr. et al.).
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 CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights