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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “a cable positioned between to core tube and the middle tube”. This should read “a cable positioned between the core tube and the middle tube” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (SE 513 249) in view of Rothweiler (EP 0 918 174).
In regards to Claim 1, Andersson discloses a telescoping rod, comprising: a core tube (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 16) having a first end and a second end; a first wheel (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 19) mounted inside the core tube at the first end; a second wheel (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 20) mounted inside the core tube at the second end; a chain (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 21) mounted around and between the first wheel and the second wheel; a first arm (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 26) coupled to the chain, partially located inside the core tube, and extending outward of the first end of the core tube; and a second arm (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 22) coupled to the chain, partially located inside the core tube, and extending outward of the second end of the core tube.
Andersson fails to disclose a first pulley mounted inside the core tube at the first end; a second pulley mounted inside the core tube at the second end; and a belt mounted around and between the first pulley and the second pulley. However, Rothweiler teaches a first pulley (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 56) mounted inside a rail at the first end; a second pulley (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 22) mounted inside the rail at the second end; and a belt (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 54) mounted around and between the first pulley and the second pulley.
Andersson and Rothweiler are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable supports; and adjusting supports via actuators. 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 chain, wheels, and each arm connection in Andersson with the pulleys, belt, and belt connection from Rothweiler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a flexible actuation connection that has an adjustable preload to ensure limited backlash and therefore more precise positioning and adjustment to tolerances (Rothweiler: [0007], [0014]), as well as to provide quieter operation.
In regards to Claim 2, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 1, wherein the belt (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 54) contains teeth in an inside surface of the belt, the first pulley (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 56) contains teeth that engage the teeth of the belt, and the second pulley (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 22) contains teeth that engage the belt.
In regards to Claim 3, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 1, further comprising a first clamp (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 58) that couples the belt to the first arm and a second clamp (Rothweiler: Fig. 3; 58) that couples the belt to the second arm.
In regards to Claim 4, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 1, further comprising a middle tube (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 11) that contains the core tube, wherein the middle tube has a first end and a second end.
In regards to Claim 6, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 4, further comprising a top tube (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 12) that at least partially fits inside the middle tube, extends outward from the middle tube at the first end of the middle tube, and is coupled to the first arm.
In regards to Claim 13, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 6, further comprising a bottom tube (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 10) that at least partially extends over the middle tube, extends away from the middle tube at the second end of the middle tube, and is coupled to the second arm.
In regards to Claim 18, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 13, further comprising a bottom cap (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 13) that couples the second arm and the bottom tube to a base (Andersson: Pg. 3, Ln. 12-15).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (SE 513 249) in view of Rothweiler (EP 0 918 174) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Preiss et al. (WO 2023/094849).
In regards to Claim 5, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 4, but fails to disclose a cable positioned between to core tube and the middle tube.
However, Preiss teaches a cable (Preiss: Fig. 2; 9) positioned between a core element (Preiss: Fig. 2; 6) and a middle tube (Preiss: Fig. 2; 5b).
Andersson and Preiss are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable supports; and adjusting supports via actuators. 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 rod in Andersson with the cable from Preiss, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of forwarding user inputs to an electric motor in an accessible location, thereby enabling them to easily control the desired length of the tube (Preiss: Fig. 2; Pg. 12, Ln. 13-33; Pg. 13, Ln. 1-7).
Claims 7-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (SE 513 249) in view of Rothweiler (EP 0 918 174) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Buitmann (US 2005/0002591).
In regards to Claim 7, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 6, but fails to disclose a first bushing located on an outside surface of the top tube at the second end of the top tube.
However, Buitmann teaches a first bushing (Buitmann: Fig. 5; 16) located on an outside surface of the top tube at the second end of the top tube.
Andersson and Buitmann are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable supports. 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 tubes in Andersson with the bushings from Buitmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an interfacing surface between the tubes that can be operated free of wear for a long period of time and ensure smooth running properties (Buitmann: [0008]).
In regards to Claim 8, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 7, wherein the first bushing (Buitmann: Fig. 5; 16) comprises two parts (Buitmann: Fig. 7; [0041]; half shell parts).
In regards to Claim 9, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 7, wherein a middle portion of the first bushing (Buitmann: Fig. 5; 16) has a larger diameter than another portion of the first bushing (Buitmann: Fig. 6; shows portion with larger diameter).
In regards to Claim 10, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 6, but fails to disclose a second bushing located at the first end of the middle tube between the top tube and the middle tube.
However, Buitmann teaches a second bushing (Buitmann: Fig. 5; 16’) located at a first end of a middle tube between a top tube and the middle tube. [Note: See the rejection of claim 7 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 11, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 10, wherein the second bushing includes at least one raised surface (Buitmann: Fig. 8; 14) that presses on an inside surface of the middle tube and cause a portion of the second bushing to bend and apply pressure to an outside surface of the top tube.
In regards to Claim 14, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 13, but fails to disclose a third bushing located at a first end of the bottom tube between the bottom tube and the middle tube.
However, Buitmann teaches a third bushing (Buitmann: Fig. 5; 15’) located at a first end of the bottom tube between the bottom tube and the middle tube. [Note: See the rejection of claim 7 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 15, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 14, wherein the third bushing includes at least one raised surface (Buitmann: Fig. 8; 14) that presses on an inside surface of the bottom tube and cause a portion of the third bushing to bend and apply pressure to an outside surface of the middle tube.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (SE 513 249) in view of Rothweiler (EP 0 918 174) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Burst et al. (US 3,504,643).
In regards to Claim 12, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 6, further comprising a top cap (Andersson: Fig. 1-4; 14) that couples the first arm and the top tube to an element (Andersson: Pg. 3, Ln. 15-18).
However, Andersson fails to disclose a mirror. However, Burst teaches a mirror (Burst: Fig. 16; 94, 98).
Andersson and Burst are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable supports. 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 support surface in Andersson with the mirror from Burst, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a supporting surface with a means of storing items and deploying reflective surfaces, enabling increased utility for a user (Burst: Col. 6, Ln. 67-75; Col. 7, Ln. 1-3).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (SE 513 249) in view of Rothweiler (EP 0 918 174) as applied to claim above, and further in view of Xiang et al. (CN 105831971).
In regards to Claim 16, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 13, but fails to disclose a pad coupled to the middle tube that presses on the bottom tube to slow movement between the middle tube and the bottom tube.
However, Xiang teaches a pad (Xiang: Fig. 2; 3-4) coupled to a middle tube that presses on a bottom tube (Xiang: Fig. 2; 2) to slow movement between the middle tube and the bottom tube.
Andersson and Xiang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable supports. 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 middle tube in Andersson with the pad from Xiang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more stable connection between the tubes to ensure good performance, and to prevent the tubes from accidentally disconnecting (Xiang: [0012]-[0014]).
In regards to Claim 17, Andersson, as modified, teaches the telescoping rod of claim 16, wherein the pad (Xiang: Fig. 2; 3-4) is longer in a first dimension along the axis of the middle tube than it is wide in a second dimension that is perpendicular to the first dimension.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights